2004-04-02

Government Orders
Library and Archives of Canada ActHon. Denis Coderre (for the Minister of Canadian Heritage): 
moved that the amendments made by the Senate to Bill C-8, an act to establish the Library and Archives of Canada, to amend the Copyright Act and to amend certain acts in consequence, be now read the second time and concurred in.

The Deputy Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Question.
The Deputy Speaker: The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Intervention]
An hon. member: On division.
(Motion agreed to, amendments read the second time and concurred in)
Bill C-25. On the Order: Government Orders

March 22, 2004--The President of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada--Second reading and reference to the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates of Bill C-25, an act to establish a procedure for the disclosure of wrongdoings in the public sector, including the protection of persons who disclose the wrongdoings.

Public Servants Disclosure Protection ActDenis Coderre: Mr. Speaker, I move:

That Bill C-25, an act to establish a procedure for the disclosure of wrongdoings in the public sector, including the protection of persons who disclose the wrongdoings, be referred forthwith to the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates.

Mr. Speaker,Canadians have every right to expect that their government will act in accordance with the highest standards. They must have confidence that their government is acting in an open, honest and transparent manner.
The government is committed to ensuring transparency, accountability, financial responsibility and ethical conduct in the public sector. That is why on March 22 I tabled the public servants disclosure protection act in the House.
Federal public sector employees must always perform their official duties and arrange their private affairs in a manner that bears the closest public scrutiny. The vast majority of public servants do serve Canadians with honour, integrity and excellence.
In some exceptional situations, however, this is not the case. So the government must create an environment in which the reporting of wrongdoing can be made without repercussion for the individual who comes forward.
This bill acknowledges that existing procedures can effectively handle many issues of reported wrongdoing. It also establishes additional support and protection for public sector employees to make good faith disclosures. It significantly strengthens protections available to employees throughout government, including those in crown corporations.
The preamble recognizes that there must be a balance between the public servants' duty of loyalty and their right to freedom of expression. This balance is essential to adopting the right disclosure procedures and justifying their implementation.
The preamble also commits the government to establishing a charter of values of publicservice setting out the values that shouldguide public servants in their work andprofessional conduct.
The law will apply to employees in all sectors of the public service, including the executives in each organization, including the crown corporations.
However, because of their distinct employment status and security concerns, the Communications Security Establishment,the Canadian Security IntelligenceService, the uniformed members of the Royal Canadian MountedPolice and members of the CanadianForces will not be subject to this law. In the case of the latter two groups, however, civilian employees will be covered by the bill.
Nevertheless, these organizations will be expected to establish comparable procedures for their members and employees, including a code of conduct and a mechanism for protection against reprisals. This means that if these agencies do not establish a code of conduct, the Treasury Board will ensure that they implement one in the same spirit as the bill before us today.
The bill requires the Treasury Board to establish a code of conduct for the entire federal public sector. Chief executives may establishacode of conduct applicable to the portion of thepublic sector for which they are responsible, but these codes must be consistent with the one established by the Treasury Board.
The code will also be referred to the committee of the House for examination. So, in order to deal properly with the issue of the democratic deficit both with the framework legislation and the code of conduct, we are committed to having the House committee carry out a thorough study of these two aspects.
Let us look at the definition of wrongdoing. The bill defines wrongdoing as: a contravention of any acts or regulations; a misuse of public funds or a public asset;a gross mismanagement in the publicsector;an act or omission that creates asubstantial and specific danger to the life,health or safety of persons or to the environment;a serious breach of a code of conductandthe taking of a reprisal against a publicservant who has acted in good faith in making a disclosure.
These are clear criteria for disclosure allowing public sector employees to determine misconduct and decide on disclosure.
The bill also sets out how employees can properly make a disclosure and what happens with that information.
First, each deputy head or CEO in the federal public sector must establish an internal disclosure mechanism, including the appointment of a senior officer to take disclosures and investigate possible wrongdoings.
Second, to ensure there is an additional avenue for disclosure in cases where internal mechanisms do not suffice, a public sector integrity commissioner will be appointed by the governor in council. The commissioner will serve for a term of seven years following approval by resolution of the Senate and the House of Commons. This position is similar to the current public service integrity officer, but with a wider legislative mandate.
The commissioner will be able to investigate alleged wrongdoings, including reprisal, and make representations to deputy heads and CEOs on his or her findings. Chief executives and all public sector employees must, and I repeat must, cooperate with the commissioner, and provide him or her with any information, assistance and access to premises required for investigations.
The commissioner will be able to make a report to the minister of the department or to the board of a crown, in cases where a deputy head or CEO does not follow the commissioner's recommendations, or if the commissioner's investigations led him to believe there was a substantial, serious and immediate danger to public health and security or to the environment from an alleged wrongdoing.
If the issue is still not resolved, the commissioner could make a special report to a minister who will be designated by the governor in council. A special report of this kind, like the commissioner's annual report, would be tabled in Parliament.
Let us talk about reprisal protection. Reprisal is defined as disciplinary action against a person because he or she reported a wrongdoing or cooperated in an investigation of wrongdoing. Reprisal can include actions such as demotion, termination of employment, or anything else that adversely affects the employment or working conditions of a person, or even a threat to do any of these things.
Under the proposed legislation, reprisal is defined as a wrongdoing and can be investigated as such. A person who feels that a reprisal has been made against him or her may make a complaint to the public service integrity commissioner or the appropriate board that deals with staff relations, such as the Public Service Staff Relations Board or the Canada Industrial Relations Board. If a reprisal is found to have occurred, these boards would have the power to order that the employee be reinstated in his or her position, if the employee had lost his or her job as a result of reprisal, or be compensated for other penalties or losses.
These are strong measures to ensure that public sector employees can have confidence that reprisal will not be tolerated if they disclose a wrongdoing.
Now, for confidentiality. The commissioner is required to ensure that the right to proceduralfairness and natural justice of all personsinvolved in investigations is respected.
In order to increase the trust of public servants and provide them with the assurance that they can make disclosures without risk and that their identity and information will be protected as much as possible, the commissioner has the capacity of an investigative bodyunder the Access to Information Act and the Privacy Act.
In other words, the commissioner would have some degree of latitude in disclosing information which would identify the person making the disclosure and the person alleged to be responsible for wrongdoings. This is not an absolute latitude, but will enhance confidentiality compared to the present system and increase people's trust of the system.
I would also like to make it clear that the internal disclosure system remains fully operational until such time as the bill has moved through the entire parliamentary process. Employees within the public service can still report wrongdoings to their immediate superior or to the public service integrity officer.
Moreover, the government has changed the internal disclosure policy in order to ensure that no employee would become a victim of reprisals, including administrative or disciplinary measures, for having disclosed a wrongdoing in good faith, in accordance with the policy, or as part of a parliamentary proceeding or an investigation related to the Auditor General's 2003 report.
Increasing confidence, providing protection, ensuring that investigations are held, are essential elements of this bill being presented, a bill that recognizes the integrity of the public sector and provides sound mechanisms for addressing reprehensible acts and protecting whistleblowers.
As hon. members know, the bill is of great interest to the public. There are indeed many well-informed and trustworthy stakeholders. Given the importance of the bill to the future of the federal public administration, I am pleased that my parliamentary colleagues can debate it and examine it from all angles. I am especially pleased at the idea of actively debating the substance and the spirit of the bill.
A lively debate has already begun in the public domain. I would like to address some of the concerns that have been raised recently. These issues include access to the commissioner, exclusions, boundaries of investigation, as well as the independence and powers of the commissioner.
First, employees should normally use, and be able to trust, internal mechanisms before going to a third party, but public sector employees also would have direct access to the commissioner if they believe the nature of their disclosure requires it.
Second, in respect of the excluded organizations, as I explained earlier, these organizations are not exempt from having similar disclosure regimes and protecting their employees from reprisals. This point needs to be emphasized again. Employees in these organizations will have access to a similar disclosure regime.
Third, with regard to the commissioner's ability to investigate wrongdoing outside the public sector, I would like to make it clear that the bill does authorize such investigations. They would be carried out by a competent authority, such as the RCMP or the proposed ethics commissioner, on the basis of information provided by the public sector integrity commissioner.
Another point related to this is that even though the bill applies only to public sector employees, they will be able to make disclosures about those who are not covered by this legislation. They can make these disclosures through the normal channels and will be protected if they do so.
Finally, there has been a great deal of discussion about the independence and powers of the commissioner. It is my belief that the commissioner will have everything he or she needs to play an independent and effective role while at the same time holding government accountable for the good operations of the federal public sector.
The commissioner's appointment will be recommended by Parliament and he or she will report to Parliament.
Consequently, I support the motion to refer the bill to committee before second reading.
Canadians have asked the current government to enhance and ensure integrity and accountability. We have listened and acted swiftly. The government will not tolerate having the improper behaviour of a handful of people overshadow the good work of the majority.
We will keep the promise we made in the Speech from the Throne. We will build upon the integrity, professionalism and impartiality of the public sector. We will promote the excellence and sense of accomplishment of the public service. And we will achieve our goal of having nothing short of the best public service in the world.
Mrs. Lynne Yelich (Blackstrap, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I rise today to contribute to the debate on Bill C-25, the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act, commonly understood to provide enhanced protection for whistleblowers in the public service.
In many respects, today's debate is not an occasion to celebrate efforts to foster greater openness and accountability in government as my Liberal colleagues would have us believe. We are first debating this legislation on a Friday, the last day before a two week break, which may be extended if an election is called.
It is true that the government fulfilled its promise made in January that this legislation would be introduced before the end of March. Regrettably, the Treasury Board president also promised that this legislation would not be passed before the public accounts committee had completed its investigation into the sponsorship scandal, not prior to the public inquiry into the same scandal.
The end result is that whatever the benefits of this legislation, and those benefits would appear to be dubious at best, it will not be in place to encourage frank disclosures by civil servants with respect to the past transgressions of senior government officials or ministers. This state of affairs is highly regrettable since Canadians of all political persuasions want to believe that the current government is sincere in its professed desire to root out corruption in government. Public service unions are equally concerned that the changes in government culture that the Prime Minister has widely proclaimed will in fact occur.
For example, following on the heels of the disgraceful behaviour of former privacy commissioner George Radwanski, we learned of the case of Norman Steinberg, the public works official responsible for ethics in his department. He spent $22,000 for an entertainment system for his office, including a widescreen plasma television. He attended 33 conferences that cost $86,000.
As Public Service Alliance of Canada president Nycole Turmel said at the time, unless the Prime Minister puts an end to the free-spending ways of public servants like Radwanski, who is no longer employed, and Steinberg, who continues to be employed, all federal employees look bad. In fact, it is these very employees by way of public sector unions who are leading the way in calling for whistleblowing legislation.
For example, some commentators have criticized the apparent silence of employees in the Office of the Privacy Commissioner during the period of abuses by Mr. Radwanski. Lynn Ray, the president of the Union of Solicitor General Employees, recently wrote to correct public perceptions. As she pointed out:

The problem was not that people did not know of the problems. The problem was that the people who knew could not speak out. Government workers have seen what happens to people who blow the whistle on wrongdoing. Even when their allegations are proved accurate, they still pay a horrible price. The careers of whistleblowers are destroyed and their family lives are devastated.
Whistleblowers perform an important service to the public. Their actions save not only public money. By exposing dangers to safety and health, they save the very lives of Canadians. Whistleblowers should be praised, not punished. They should not pay for their public service by putting their jobs on the line. Employees and the Canadian public need strong and effective legislation to protect those who reveal wrongdoing.

Unfortunately, this legislation does little to effect the Prime Minister's wishes, assuming that he is sincere in addressing government corruption and waste. It also does not address the concerns of employees who want to be protected when they speak out. It is even deficient in the eyes of Canada's first public service integrity officer, noted ethicist Dr. Edward Keyserlingk. Not much has been heard from him since his appointment in November 2001. He currently reports to the President of the Treasury Board.
At the time, the integrity officer was operating under a Treasury Board policy to encourage employee disclosure of wrongdoing. The problem was there were no perceived legislative protections that would protect employees from reprisals.
In addition, as Dr. Keyserlingk pointed out in September 2003, at the time of his first annual report tabled in Parliament through the President of the Treasury Board, he was being regarded in much the same light as the ethics counsellor. He was not regarded as being functionally independent of the government.
Dr. Keyserlingk called for legislation to create a revised agency to better enable the disclosure and correction of wrongdoings in the public service and protection for whistleblowers from reprisals. This same individual called the current legislation before the House a disappointment.
One of the main reasons the legislation is disappointing in the eyes of so many is because the whistleblower is compelled to make his or her disclosures through internal government channels and, in particular, through either a superior or the newly constituted public sector integrity commissioner.
The problem persists. The public sector integrity commissioner will not function independently of Parliament. He or she will instead report through a minister as yet to be designated by the Prime Minister. The deficiency is obvious. If the wrongdoing emanates from or involves the office of the minister, what possible protection is there for a whistleblower?
There has now been testimony from several sources that the sponsorship program was directed by the then minister of public works. There is also testimony that directions to this program were also emanating from the office of the Prime Minister.
As but one example, my colleague from Winnipeg Centre has publicly disclosed information received by him from a civil servant who was told to write a cheque for $100,000 for work he knew was never performed. When the civil servant objected, his superior advised him that they were taking their instructions directly from the PMO and that he should sign it. As my colleague from Winnipeg Centre has stated, we believe it goes to the highest level of the Prime Minister's Office, including the former prime minister.
Consistent with the legislative weaknesses already noted is the fact that whistleblower protection is not accorded to the House of Commons staff, the RCMP or members of Canada's armed forces, among others, yet we know that none of these entities are free from scandal. In particular, we have a recent example from this past January of the very public RCMP raid of the residence of Ottawa Citizen reporter, Juliet O'Neill, seeking information in her possession concerning the Maher Arar case. In that case, Mr. Arar contends that it was the RCMP and related security personnel who conspired to have him diverted to Syria where he spent one year in jail without trial.
The raid on Ms. O'Neill's residence also sends another message concerning the deficiencies of the legislation before us. It does not protect whistleblowers who make their disclosures to the media or otherwise, apart from the approved channels of disclosure, the non-independent public sector integrity commissioner.
Similarly, the stories of a veteran RCMP officer condemned for leaking the allegations of corruption at the Canadian high commission in Hong Kong and a civilian fire chief fired for revealing what he considered unsafe conditions on a Canadian military base in Afghanistan highlight the need for comprehensive whistleblower legislation that does protect those who speak out when they see problems.
What is particularly important under the proposed legislation is that the public sector integrity commissioner would not necessarily be appointed by an all party committee. Instead, we have the potential for the ethics counsellor appointment process where there is no independent review of qualifications or effectiveness.
From examples we know about, we can see that in many respects the legislation will actually discourage whistleblowers from coming forward because the protections available to them are substantially as empty as the ones they have at present.
As one commentator noted, conscientious people who want to serve the taxpayers honestly should have no fear of reprisals at all. The proposed legislation does not provide that assurance.
The kind of environment that punishes people who speak out is not exclusive to this federal level. In my home city of Saskatoon there is a case where a hospital head of emergency medicine was removed from his position after he wrote a letter to the province stating patient care was compromised because of a lack of resources. Is there a connection?
Those types of cases are the reason I am interested in this legislation. We have a real opportunity to set an example that could be followed at other levels of government and administration, and that is very important. Canadians deserve better.
I can only hope that members opposite will agree with this sentiment and work with all members of the House to make the much needed improvement to the legislation before it is subject to a vote.
Ms. Monique Guay (Laurentides, BQ): Mr. Speaker, if I understand correctly, I think there will be serious discussions in committee among the Conservatives, NDP and the government.
It is unfortunate that there had to be a sponsorship scandal for this legislation to be introduced in the House today. It is unfortunate, because if such legislation had existed, we would not have needed to do this. I want to say, nonetheless, that this is a good start by the President of the Privy Council, and we will support the principle of the bill. This does not mean that we are agreeing to it as is, on the contrary.
This is a nice gesture, and I hope that we will have the time to consider this bill. It is well known that, with an election looming, because there is one on the horizon, the government is making itself look good by introducing legislation on whistleblowers. Yet, we must ask, will there be time to go through the whole process and make all the necessary amendments?
Such legislation cannot be passed secretly, with a one, two, three, go and it is over. Many improvements need to be made. Witnesses must be heard. It is important that representatives of the public service be able to appear before the committee. It is also important to hear from people personally affected.
We have all already heard from employees both in and outside the public service who say that they were aware of illegal acts being committed or such and such a thing going on, but that they were powerless to say anything because they might have lost their job.
We must act. We agree with this bill. However, many amendments will be needed to satisfy the Bloc Quebecois.
First, the legislation should be retroactive to January 1, 2004. I will explain why. It goes without saying that all those who disclosed information about the sponsorship scandal should be protected under this legislation. The legislation should be retroactive, so that whistleblowers can benefit from the protection that it provides. Therefore, we hope that it will be retroactive to January 1, 2004. Of course, we will have to be able to consider the bill this year, before an election is called, but there is no guarantee this will happen.
The bill does not include any provision allowing a whistleblower to ask for a transfer, a deployment or a paid leave should his or her situation at work have become unbearable, particularly during the commissioner's investigation.
As we know, an investigation may take some time, it may take longer than expected. It may even take months to complete. If the whistleblower remains in the same work environment, he or she could be exposed to threats, blackmail or harassment. We must be able to relocate this person. If this cannot be done, that person must be protected as required. This is why this bill is being presented. This person must at least be entitled to paid leave and not be financially penalized because he or she reported some wrongdoings. This is not included in the bill, and I hope that we can bring in amendments to change that.
Who appoints the commissioner and to whom does the commissioner report? Based on our interpretation of the wording of this bill, and we will discuss it more thoroughly in committee, the status of the integrity commissioner will be similar to that of the ethics commissioner. We do not want a commissioner of this type, who reports to a minister, because Parliament will not necessarily be kept informed of everything the commissioner may have to say. We would prefer the commissioner to report directly to Parliament, that is to all political parties, so that we can draw our own conclusions.
However, a commissioner should not be appointed just to look good, and not have any real power akin to the Auditor General's.
When the Auditor General tables her report or conducts an investigation, she does so before all the political parties, unhindered in what she can say. The commissioner should be able to play this role and be entirely free to provide us with information without having to go through a department.
That is quite important to us because we think exceptional transparency is vital when it comes to this legislation, and we do not see it here.
The Public Service Alliance already has some concerns. I will read a small paragraph:

Potential whistleblowers do not have the unfettered right to go directly to the agency, but are instead obligated to first go to their supervisors. For example, before commencing an investigation, the commissioner must be satisfied that the employee has exhausted all other avenues prior to taking the matter to the commissioner.

The government is in the process of creating the very obstacles that it is trying to remove. If we really want someone to be able to disclose a wrongdoing, then we must try to avoid having numerous obstacles and allow this person to achieve their objective. Creating other obstacles will not help the cause and wrongdoings will not be disclosed.
In fact, people will not want to. They will still be afraid of taking this path. This may also take long. So, it is a serious decision. Therefore, if someone makes the decision to disclose bad practices, illegalities or mismanagement of public money, it is really a significant decision to make. This person must be protected in every possible way. In this respect, there are shortcomings in the bill.
This bill also says that the individual, the person making a disclosure, must make that disclosure to his or her senior officer. This senior officer, the boss, is very often the source of the problem. In such a case, the whistleblower would not go to the boss, if that person is the guilty party, and say, “Listen, I have a problem; I have seen some things and I am going to blow the whistle on you”.
The whistleblower must be able to turn to someone else, and that must be clarified. It is not clear in the bill, since it says that the individual must first go through the senior officer. But if the senior officer is guilty, what should be done?
Consequently, there are some things to clarify. I know that a bill is never perfect. Work must be done, however, and we will help make the necessary improvements, in order to make this bill acceptable.
There must also be provisions for protection from psychological harassment. We know that an employee may be told, “It is fine; you can stay on the job. You have made your disclosure. We will protect you”, but the whistleblower may be subject to psychological harassment. There is nothing, no law, no provisions in any law to protect people from psychological harassment. One of my colleagues has introduced a private members' bill on this subject. We know there are many cases here in the public service.
There are no provisions for this in the bill. Nor are there any in any other law nor in the labour code. This absolutely must be considered.
I could go on longer, but I only have 10 minutes, and I know that we will be able to examine this bill in committee. I sincerely hope that the basic work will be done. We will introduce interesting amendments and we will call witnesses. Our list of witnesses is ready. I hope that the minister is ready for some serious work and ready to bring in the amendments needed for this bill to become a law that truly respects those who make disclosures and enables them to be totally and completely protected when they do so.
Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP): Mr. Speaker, good managers welcome whistleblowing. Good managers want to know what is really going on in the enterprises over which they have control, and it is only people with something to hide who resist the introduction of whistleblowing protection measures.
As a way of introduction, the red book of 1993 specifically promised legislated whistleblowing protection, stemming from the outrageous scandals of the Mulroney government where a cabinet minister a week seemed to be hauled off to jail. In this case it was a Liberal government promising measures so that public servants could feel protected in coming forward with information about wrongdoing, and that was 11 years ago.
Now we have the minister with the gall, the temerity, to introduce Bill C-25. Then the Prime Minister in his latest ad scam, which are the television ads now running, has a banner running along the bottom of the ads stating that whistleblowers have legislative protection. It is misleading the public to think that whistleblowing legislation, as they contemplate it, will protect civil servants. Nothing could be further from the truth.
The bill should be called an act to protect ministers from whistleblowers, not an act to protect whistleblowers. It should be called an act to plug leaks, an act to stop civil servants telling what they know about what the government is doing with public finances. If there were any honesty associated with the bill, that is what is should be called.
The minister has a lot something to stand up and tell us today that he is sincerely committed to protection for whistleblowers. The bill blatantly contradicts the recommendations and findings of no fewer than three recent task forces, including the Keyserlingk task force. These are some of the most knowledgeable people on this subject in the country. The leading authorities in the country on whistleblowers have spoken and everyone of them unanimously have said whistleblowing protection will be meaningless unless the whistleblower commissioner or officer reports directly to Parliament.
If nothing else is clear in the bill, it should have been that the newly commissioned whistleblowing protection officer has to report to Parliament. To report to or through a minister, as is the language in the bill, is reporting to the executive of government. It is a 180° contradiction from what was unanimously recommended by no fewer than three independent task forces on the subject, which they have ignored. It is contradictory to no fewer than 12, I believe it is, private members' bills that have been put forward in good faith by members of all parties in the past 11 years, since the Liberal government promised this.
Everyone agrees that there has to be that arm's length independence to give confidence to civil servants who may have knowledge of the maladministration of funds or wrongdoing.
This is a travesty, and it is so clearly just an illusion. This is smoke and mirrors so the Liberals can say to the people of Canada, “We embrace real whistleblower protection,” and they can honestly say to the public, “We have introduced legislation regarding whistleblowers.” They cannot say that they are offering whistleblowers in the civil service true legislative protection because that would be a lie. What they are saying is that they have introduced whistleblowing legislation.
I can tell the Canadian public that this whistleblowing legislation is so flawed that public servants are better off with no legislation than with this bad legislation because it gives the illusion of safety. In actual fact, with the narrow prescribed route that whistleblowers would have to take, they would be better off with no protection at all. They would be better off with the status quo than with this flawed bill. There were so many models from which to choose.
In 1996 a member from the Bloc Quebecois put forward a very good private member's bill on whistleblowing protection. His name escapes me. His model was borrowed from a previous private member's bill. Subsequently, a member from the Alliance and myself both introduced whistleblowing legislation modelled after the same essentially agreed upon process that the leading authorities are now point out was the correct way to go.
Therefore, we did not need another bill to protect ministers from whistleblowers. They enjoy that already. However, now we are given this busy work to keep our committee occupied in trying to craft garbage into something useful. I do not think it can be done. We are not Rumplestiltskins. We cannot weave gold out of straw. We do not have time. This Parliament is in its twilight hours, and frankly it is unnecessary because we all know what needs to be done.
Ask Mr. Keyserlingk, ask the leading authorities around the country how to craft good whistleblowing legislation. They can tell us clearly in 10 minutes. Read any national newspaper in the country. They have done assessments, and in the narrow confines of a simple one column article, they have pointed out everything that is wrong with this bill and everything that could be done to fix it.
I encourage the minister to have his staff read the Regina Leader Post, The Ottawa Citizen, Globe and Mail. Every one of the authorities who have reviewed this legislation point out that it is so fatally flawed it is not only meaningless, it is actually harmful. It is actually detrimental because civil servants will be worse off. It excludes the RCMP.
I think my colleague who will speak later will point out some of the flaws there. We know there are whistleblowers waiting within the RCMP with information that they wish to bring forward, but they do not feel safe under this bill or under the status quo.
I lived through the Radwanski scandal, as a member of the government operations committee. It really drove the message home to me the need for comprehensive whistleblowing legislation when the good people who came forward with information about Radwanski, who came to our committee, showed up with their lawyers.
Honest civil servants in the public service, who come forward and do the right thing by sharing their information with the committee of members of Parliament, feel it necessary to bring their own privately hired legal counsel with them for their own protection. That is so fundamentally wrong. It just breaks my heart to think that is what we have stooped to around here.
Here was a golden opportunity. Finally there was an opportunity to flesh out and to give meaning and definition to what we have been calling for so long. The minister has chosen not to in the most cynical of ways. Not only has he failed to introduce meaningful legislation, he is trying to mislead the Canadian public in the television ads that are running in the country. In the ad the Prime Minister is talking to a group of people in some kitchen. Along the bottom a little banner, like CNN has, says “Whistleblowers now protected by legislation”. That is not true.
The bill will not pass in this Parliament. Even if the bill did pass, whistleblowers would not be protected by legislation. In fact the inverse is actually true. It is a ruse. It is a well orchestrated deception. It is electioneering. It is smoke and mirrors. It is anything but legitimate whistleblower protection.
If the minister is being honest, he will withdraw this bill. He would listen to the Canadian public and to all the authorities across the country who have the answer. He could frankly take good legislation right off the shelf, introduce it and table it before the end of this Parliament, if he were serious.
Mr. Paul Forseth (New Westminster—Coquitlam—Burnaby, CPC): Mr. Speaker, after much delay, the government finally has tabled its whistleblower legislation, Bill C-25 the public servants disclosure protection act, but the bill is so poor it should be withdrawn and replaced with a legitimate one.
I recall when the Liberals were in opposition, they railed against the Progressive Conservatives, outlining the desperate need for such legislation. Once they were in power they forgot all about it.
Years later a timid attempt was made through an internal memo policy but it did not work. Then I managed to get the Treasury Board minister to up the stakes and recognize the memo policy in statute. However, the whole matter clearly needed a comprehensive stand-alone regime with a full budget and a completely independent and powerful authority to investigate and remediate.
The bill establishes a procedure for the disclosure of wrongdoing in the public sector and tries to provide for the protection of persons who disclose the wrongdoing. The bill fails to deliver. Unfortunately, it took two high profile scandals, the Radwanski affair and the sponsorship debacle, to push whistleblower legislation to the top of the government's agenda.
The bill should bring a culture change. The old poisoned culture became painfully evident during a parliamentary investigation into the conduct of the former privacy commissioner, George Radwanski, who threatened to destroy the career of the rat who exposed his lavish overspending, forgeries and frauds.
My service in the middle of that committee process unlocked the pent up knowledge of many who knew of the multiple wrongdoing. No one had talked up to that point because they were all afraid.
Upon reflection from that experience, I was convinced that comprehensive legislation was needed. Also, the depth and extent of abuses in the current sponsorship scandal of ad scam, the plumbers unit, and the Gagliano papers, underlines the need to encourage a new approach within the public service.
The current integrity officer, Edward Keyserlingk, who has long criticized the policy under which he operates for its toothlessness, says that he expected a lot more from the legislation given the climate in which it was drafted. The bill stops short of giving the new integrity commissioner full investigative powers, including the ability to subpoena and gain access to cabinet documents. In addition, the commissioner will report through a minister rather than directly to Parliament.
We put the matter directly to the government the other day, and I said:

Mr. Speaker, whistleblower legislation must be seen to be trustworthy and workable by the faithful public servant who may need it.
In the bill tabled yesterday, the government still wants to politically control the independent oversight role of Parliament.
Why is the government insisting on undermining employee confidence in this new office by injecting a ministerial filter for reporting wrongdoing?

The President of the Queen's Privy Council, in part said:

--I do not agree with my colleague. The bill does not filter at all. The fact that the commissioner will be appointed by both Houses, the Senate and the House of Commons, I think shows that the position is pretty independent.

I asked further:

--the President of the Treasury Board admitted that he was wrong about being against whistleblowing in view of the Radwanski scandal, but the problem is that we need comprehensive stand alone legislation that creates a real system with officers and a proper budget, and with credible authority across Canada that is separate from politics.
The Treasury Board is the employer of the public service. Why is the President of the Treasury Board not ensuring that employees get everything they need to keep the system honest? Will he provide that?

Well, the minister, the President of the Treasury Board, just sat there in his chair, and again the President of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada answered in the following way:

Mr. Speaker, I think the member should read the bill. Not only would we cover all the angles but we would provide all the tools in the budget for the future commissioner to do his job. With all the tools he will have, he will be able to not only go through every department but he will have everything he needs to seek all the information and then to make recommendations.
After that, when we look at the correct situation and it is not proceeding in departments, we are even able to deposit a special report to Parliament. Therefore it is pretty independent. I think the way we have planned it is pretty accurate.

Whistleblower legislation is no panacea to what ails government. Its potential downside is that it offers disgruntled and problem employees with the potential to make unfounded and nuisance allegations against their employers anonymously. However, the commissioner will have the power to vet such complaints in private to decide to proceed, ensuring that frivolous or vexatious complaints are quickly dismissed.
The mere existence of whistleblower legislation, no matter how strong, will not immediately result in a more ethical government and happier bureaucrats. Government needs to be competent in management so that the need for reporters of wrongdoing becomes the rare exception. Canadians should demand and expect line management that does not require reporting to the outside.
The bill does not cover workers in private industry who deal with the government, like the employees of the ad agency so entangled in the current scandals. It applies only to federal employees, with many exemptions. It covers most federal departments as well as crown corporations such as VIA Rail, but excludes police and intelligence officers and members of the armed forces. About 4,000 employees of the House of Commons, many of whom have access to sensitive information, are also exempt. Cabinet staff is exempt--perhaps where knowledge of most wrongdoing would come to light.
However, despite the problems, the legislation is a start. Had it been in place a few years ago, it is possible that the sponsorship scandal, which saw millions in federal funds flow to Liberal-friendly ad agencies, would have been stopped a lot sooner. The few people who tried to speak out about the sponsorship abuse were reprimanded. Even now, one person has had his life threatened if that person dares to talk to my parliamentary committee.
Often it is in the higher levels, where discretionary decision making happens, where the real problems arise. There is no point reporting wrongdoing at first instance to those who are part of the swindle. Independence of reporting and investigation and powerful remedial action are vital elements for this whole scheme to work.
The culture of transparency must come from the Prime Minister so that we can put the access to information office out of business. Each person in the public service must exercise their own self-governance of probity. They will only do this if there is a system-wide culture of openness, where everything is on the open record and transparent and secrecy is accomplished only through a reverse onus process for justified need.
In governments, corporations and other big institutions, there are people who risk all by openly denouncing crooked behaviour. A healthy democracy needs such people and society must protect them.
Bill C-25 was eagerly anticipated and it is dismally inadequate. It would create a public service integrity commissioner who would report through a cabinet minister rather than directly to Parliament. That sabotages both the credibility and independence of the office, in the view of public employees.
Even worse, the bill fails to give the commissioner the right to subpoena witnesses, access cabinet documents or follow investigations into cabinet ministers' offices, the RCMP, the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, the Communications Security Establishment, or National Defence.
In 1996, a junior manager in the federal public works department went to top executives with alarming information. There was something fishy with his supervisor's oversight of contracts for federal sponsorships which were intended to show the flag in the emotionally charged atmosphere after the 1995 Quebec referendum. What happened? The civil servant was ignored, then demoted and came close to being fired. His supervisor got a promotion.
So the Prime Minister brings in his first bill under his watch and it is a dud. The cabinet caved in to the deputy minister group, which does not want to be second guessed by upstarts. The Prime Minister just cannot get anything right. He finally brings in new legislation that he can honestly call his own, but he gets it all wrong. Canadians do not want an integrity commissioner who sits comfortably in the lap of a Liberal cabinet minister.
I say to the government, will it live up to the democratic deficit promise and let Parliament select, appoint and supervise Canada's first integrity commissioner? Many prominent Canadians with knowledge or an understanding of the importance of an integrity commissioner say the legislation is flawed. Whistleblower legislation should cover all aides to cabinet ministers and the Department of National Defence, the RCMP and all other federal agencies.
Will the government allow the committee to fix the bill and replace its flawed construction and give Parliament the responsibility of seeking out, appointing and supervising an integrity commissioner who will have a real and uncompromised independence in the House?
We want the concept to succeed. The government is going to call an election soon, and it will try to claim it has a bill, but I say it is not worth much. On this side of the House, we are sincere. May we find some on the government side who are as well.

Statements By Members
Roméo DallaireMr. Jeannot Castonguay (Madawaska—Restigouche, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Roméo Dallaire, a former Lieutenant-General in the Canadian Forces, went through hell as a firsthand witness of the horrible genocide that took place in Rwanda.
Let us hope that our country and the whole world will learn from this tragic episode in history, which Mr. Dallaire had to watch helplessly. Let us also hope that we never forget the root causes of this tragedy and that we learn the lessons so that such acts can be prevented in the future.
Yesterday, the book written by Mr. Dallaire on the genocide in Rwanda and entitled Shake Hands with the Devil , won the Shaughnessy Cohen award of the Writer's Trust of Canada. This is undoubtedly small consolation for Mr. Dallaire, but this recognition deserves to be mentioned in the House.
This prize is awarded for books that help Canadians better understand current political and social issues. I urge my colleagues and all Canadians to read Mr. Dallaire's personal account.
Organ Donor Awareness MonthMr. Ted White (North Vancouver, CPC): Mr. Speaker, April is organ donor awareness month in B.C. and the British Columbia Transplant Society is making a special effort to urge more British Columbians to register as organ donors.
Unfortunately, more than 400 British Columbians are currently waiting for life-saving or life-enhancing organ transplants. Last year, 29 people in B.C. died while waiting for an organ transplant.
These needless deaths could have been avoided if there had been more names on the B.C. organ donor registry, but B.C. is not alone as a province with a shortage of pre-registered donors. All across Canada there is a critical need for more people to pre-register as donors.
It is for this reason that I rise today to urge everyone who hears or reads this statement to call 1-800-663-6189 to ask how they can pre-register as organ donors. That is 1-800-663-6189, Mr. Speaker, and I hope that you will do it this afternoon.
RwandaHon. Shawn Murphy (Hillsborough, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, recently the House of Commons adopted a motion to declare April 7 as a day of remembrance of the victims of the 1994 Rwandan genocide and to encourage all Canadians, including the Government of Canada, to take action to commemorate the tragedy.
It was 10 years ago this month that thousands of people in Rwanda lost their lives needlessly. Some Canadians have initiated an international movement to recognize the 10th anniversary of the 1994 Rwandan genocide across the country.
We must applaud the efforts of Canadians of Rwandan origin and others who are planning events to commemorate this tragedy. We must join with them in remembering the victims and making sure that a tragedy like this does not happen again.
Battle of Vimy RidgeHon. John Harvard (Charleswood St. James—Assiniboia, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, April 9 marks the 87th anniversary of the Battle of Vimy Ridge. The victory by Canadian troops marked a profound turning point for the allies.
As General Byng, commander of the Canadian Corps, would write:

There they stood on Vimy Ridge on the ninth day of April, 1917... men from Quebec stood shoulder to shoulder with men from British Columbia and Alberta and there was forged a nation, a nation tempered by fires of sacrifice--

The Battle of Vimy Ridge would claim over 10,000 casualties, including 3,598 who would lie forever on French soil.
We remember their valour and bravery. Four Canadians, Private William Milne, Lance-Sergeant Ellis Sifton, Captain Thain MacDowell and Private John Pattison, would be awarded the Victoria Cross for their acts of supreme courage.
As we honour this battle, we keep our promise of remembrance we have made to all our veterans. Thanks to the initiative of the hon. member for Algoma—Manitoulin and the support of all members, April 9 is a National Day of Remembrance for those who fought and who made the ultimate sacrifice in the Battle of Vimy Ridge. Lest we forget.
New Horizons ProgramMs. Yolande Thibeault (Saint-Lambert, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, during the last budget speech, I was truly pleased to hear the Minister of Finance announce the reintroduction of the New Horizons Program, with a budget of $8 million in 2004-05 and $10 million for the two following years. This was a recommendation of the task force on seniors, which I chaired last fall.
The New Horizons Program provides funding for community projects undertaken in every region of the country, thus contributing to the well-being of our seniors. This program also served as a foundation for the establishment of golden age clubs, including in my riding. It stresses the importance of the volunteer work done by seniors who want to maintain an active life, contribute to community life and take part in social activities.
Seniors play a major role in Canadian families and communities, and I am proud to be part of a government that helps them expand their horizons.
Airline IndustryMr. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River, CPC): Mr. Speaker, in my riding of Prince George--Peace River, federal cuts and reductions in airline service are threatening to put a chokehold on a recent surge in economic growth.
It has been predicted that a reduction in Nav Canada services at the Dawson Creek airport may compel airlines to avoid that airport altogether, amid concerns that pilots will have reduced support in judging the safety of landing conditions. This will negate the over two years of improvements to the facility designed to attract increased airline traffic.
Meanwhile, Air Canada Jazz has indicated it intends to eliminate its service to Fort Nelson and reduce service to Fort St. John, this despite a significant increase in air traffic and a track record of oversold flights propelled by a healthy economic boom.
It is ironic that services are being cut to the very airports that are projecting an increase in traffic. Airports are the very lifeblood of remote northern communities. I say shame on the Liberal government for ignoring the needs of rural Canada.
Burlington Teen Tour BandMs. Paddy Torsney (Burlington, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on Sunday, April 4, the Burlington Teen Tour Band will present its sixth annual Lincoln Alexander Concert at Hamilton Place, the 27th annual concert at this venue.
This year it is an extra special event. On the eve of the 60th anniversary of the D-Day landings in Normandy, these talented young Canadians will pay tribute to our veterans.
The Teen Tour band is Canada's largest youth band with approximately 200 members between the ages of 13 and 21. A military-style precision marching band, its members are commonly referred to as Canada's musical ambassadors.
The band was formed in 1947 to welcome home soldiers at the end of the war. They have performed all around the world at amazing venues all across Canada, the United States, and internationally at the 40th anniversary of the liberation of Holland and at the 40th anniversary of the D-Day ceremonies in France.
This concert will be an important opportunity to pass along the torch of remembrance to generations of future Canadians and help us all remember the sacrifices of our veterans.
Natural ResourcesMr. Gilles-A. Perron (Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the federal government is refusing to create a petroleum monitoring agency, under the pretext of allowing multinational oil companies to control the market.
By so doing, this government is ignoring a unanimous recommendation by the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology to regulate an industry sorely in need of it and which is doing tremendous harm to the economy, particularly the transportation industry.
However, the situation is urgent and the threat of gas prices reaching $1 per litre very shortly means that this government should take this crisis, which has struck again, seriously by quickly creating a petroleum monitoring agency, essential to ensuring the sound management of this industry.
Cancer MonthMr. Marcel Proulx (Hull—Aylmer, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, April marks the beginning of spring and Cancer Month.
In order to raise public awareness, the Canadian Cancer Society will sell thousands of fresh daffodils all weekend long. More than 300 volunteers will be working in the Outaouais region. Donations will be used to fund research, provide support for people living with cancer, distribute information and prevent cancer.
I want to thank all the volunteers who work so hard to raise funds, particularly the honorary campaign chair in the Outaouais, Roch Martel.
I invite the public to give generously when the volunteers pass by. Who among us does not know a family member, friend or colleague affected by this disease? Please give generously to stamp out cancer and improve the lives of those affected.
The Prime MinisterMr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, CPC): Mr. Speaker, it is actually kind of sad watching this Prime Minister, a man who came to office with such great promise, becoming such a disappointment.
Let us think about how he promised to fix Canada-U.S. relations, yet he cannot even find time to meet with the President of the United States. The border is still locked to our beef, and our lumber exporters are still being hurt by American protectionism.
He is a Prime Minister who promised to fix our military but has done nothing to stop the bankruptcy of our armed forces, a Prime Minister who promised to grow the economy when it actually shrank in the month of January, a Prime Minister who promised to fix the democratic deficit and who is now appointing candidates to his own party rather than allowing them to run for election, and a Prime Minister who will not even appoint to the Senate people elected by the people of Alberta to represent them in that place.
I hope the Prime Minister goes to the polls so that Canadians can pass a verdict on this great disappointment that is unfolding before our eyes.
Member for Niagara CentreMr. John Maloney (Erie—Lincoln, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to my friend and colleague, the hon. member for Niagara Centre.
Due to the redistribution of electoral boundaries, the hon. member and I were recently faced with the unenviable task of competing for the Liberal nomination in the riding of Welland.
The recent months have not been easy for either of us but I want to point out that in a media full of stories about colleagues fiercely contesting colleagues in all political parties, the nomination process and meeting in Niagara were examples of how things should work. I compliment the hon. member for his decorum and gentlemanly conduct at all times.
I have worked with the member since his election in November 2000 and I have worked with many of the hon. member's staff since I first came to Parliament in 1993, as they worked for our former speaker and Niagara Centre member, Gib Parent.
On behalf of my family, my staff and all riding constituents, I wish the hon. member for Niagara Centre the very best, to he, his staff, his daughter Alex, his mother Maria and his partner Martine. It has not only been my pleasure to call him a colleague, but my honour.
Canada Customs and Revenue AgencyMs. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, in 1987, 5,750 Nova Scotians lost their life savings when Principal Group collapsed.
In the early 1990s some of the investors received compensation from provincial governments. However a final settlement was not reached until May 2001 when investors had to settle for less than 1¢ for every $1 they invested.
That is bad enough but three years later Canada Customs and Revenue Agency has yet to issue the clearance certificate needed to enable disbursement of the settlement funds.
Seventeen years later, many seniors have passed away without recovering a dime of that settlement for their life savings invested in Principal Group.
When is the federal government going to do the right thing and issue the clearance certificate required?
Employment InsuranceMr. Gérard Asselin (Charlevoix, BQ): Mr. Speaker, in spite of the unanimous report from the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities in May 2001, which included a recommendation to adjust eligibility requirements for seasonal workers, the Liberals persist in ignoring the legitimate demands of the unemployed.
For months, years even, the jobless coalitions Sans-Chemise and Action-Chômage have been calling for changes to the EI program but the government turns a deaf ear.
Despite the promises made by the Prime Minister to the Sans-Chemise of the Charlevoix region when he was in Baie-Saint-Paul, the Liberals have again proven their total contempt for the unemployed by voting this past Wednesday against Motion M-475 to ensure specific status for seasonal workers.
While the shirtless, the Sans-Chemise, are out on the street, the heartless are here in Ottawa, forming the government.
Rotary Club of WolfvilleHon. Scott Brison (Kings—Hants, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Rotary Club of Wolfville is continuing its proud tradition of “service above self”.
This Saturday evening the club is holding its 20th annual gala night at the Old Orchard Inn. It is a fundraising event, complete with dinner, dancing and a silent auction. The proceeds of this event will go to local students pursuing a post-secondary education.
Last year, six students from Horton District High School and North East Kings Education Centre each received a $2,500 entrance scholarship to help them continue their education. These scholarships reward the very best in achievement as each student is chosen because of a strong commitment to academic excellence and community involvement.
Since the first gala night in 1985, the Rotary Club of Wolfville has given $140,000 in scholarships and bursaries to local students.
I applaud the members of the Rotary Club of Wolfville and its gala night committee for their dedication to the Wolfville community.
National SecurityMr. Rob Anders (Calgary West, CPC): Mr. Speaker, over the past 10 years the Liberals have drastically cut funding to defence and reduced the size of our military. Now they are scrambling to slap band-aids on the gaping holes in our national security at the last minute.
The past decade gave us the dissolution of the ports police, huge cuts in the defence budget and insufficient support to our intelligence agencies like the RCMP. Instead, the Liberals squandered taxpayer dollars on the gun registry, the HRDC boondoggle and bogus work for Liberal ad firms.
What government puts the needs of cronies ahead of the safety and security of its citizens? Imagine where all those hundreds of millions and billions could have gone instead of the Liberal government lining its own pockets.
It could have gone toward replacing the Sea King helicopters. It could have gone toward port security. It could have gone toward Aurora patrols over our costs. In short, it could have gone toward making Canada a safer and more secure place in which to live.
World Health DayHon. John McKay (Scarborough East, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on April 7 we will be celebrating World Health Day, which marks the establishment of the World Health Organization.
The WHO established this important day to provide a forum for discussion regarding various health challenges worldwide.
This year the focus is on road safety. The slogan “Road Safety is No Accident” was chosen to highlight the fact that road traffic injuries are preventable.
Improvements in road safety do not happen accidentally, but require deliberate efforts by various sectors of society.
On April 7, I invite all Canadians to joint us to promote road safety, to personally make a commitment to drive, ride, cycle or walk safely and to actively participate in the promotion of road safety initiatives in their communities.
Government of CanadaLynne Yelich: Mr. Speaker, we in Saskatchewan cheered the tabling of the opposition leader's bill calling for fixed elections dates.
Pummelled by a provincial NDP budget targeting farmers, a federal Liberal government that has failed to re-open the U.S. border and a Prime Minister trying to dig his way out of a scandal by distracting us with budget promises he likely will not keep, the people in my province welcome a measure that will bring some stability and sanity to a government system that otherwise makes a mockery of Parliament.
Budgets, policy and legislation should be about enhancing life for Canadians and not about manipulation and political expediency while we wait for an election that may or may not be called, depending on when it is convenient.

Oral Question Period
Jason Kenney: Mr. Speaker, the Liberal record of waste and incompetence speaks for itself. First there was the $1 billion boondoggle, then the $2 billion wasted on the failed gun registry and then, of course, the $100 million ripped off by Liberal firms in the ad scam.
Now there is the $400 million slush fund. Last week the government promised to reveal the details on the slush fund but now it is back-pedalling on that promise too.
Where is the information that the government promised on the slush fund? Where did the money go?
Hon. Joe Jordan (Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the President of the Treasury Board has initiated a process that is looking at the funds and how they were allocated to departments. It is a complicated process, and when the process is complete the hon. member will have his information.
Jason Kenney: Mr. Speaker, first government officials said that the information was publically available and then they admitted that it was not. Then they said that they would release it in days and now they say that it has become very complicated and that we will just have to wait.
How is it that the Liberal government ran a $400 million secret slush fund and now it does not even know where the money went?
Joe Jordan: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member's sort of oversimplification of the complexities of the workings of government I think call into question his certain skill set if he ever wants to apply that.
We have made a commitment to track this money down. We will put together a list of the projects and work our way through the main estimates so that when we go to the people with this information it will be complete.
Jason Kenney: Yes, Mr. Speaker, we do believe in a simple principle, that Canadians have a right to know where their tax dollars go. That is why the whole idea of a secret slush fund, the Liberal honey pot, is offensive to Canadians.
Why did the government promise a week ago to release it within days? One official from Treasury Board said that it could be released today. That was on March 26.
The clock is ticking and an election is approaching. Canadians want to know where their $400 million went. Why will the government not release this information?
Hon. Anne McLellan (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I want to reassure the hon. member that all expenditures that drew on the unity reserve were routinely reported in the public accounts and are therefore part of the public record.
As he should know, Treasury Board is compiling information regarding the use of the reserve. That process does take some time to complete but I can reassure the hon. member that the information will be forthcoming.
Jay Hill: Mr. Speaker, it is funny how it will be forthcoming when the government promised it over a week ago.
All Canadians now know that the Prime Minister's word means nothing. Yesterday we had to not only witness the sad spectacle of the Prime Minister breaking yet another promise for democratic reform by appointing candidates in B.C. rather than trusting the judgment of British Columbians, now we learn that he has no intention of keeping his word to reveal where the money went from Jean Chrétien's secret unity slush fund.
Why has the Prime Minister chosen to cover up the flagrant abuse of tax dollars by Jean Chrétien?
Anne McLellan: Mr. Speaker, I find it very interesting that the opposition is so interested in the internal workings of our party. I wonder if names like Jim Hart, Grant Devine and Ezra Levant mean anything to the members of the official opposition.
Jay Hill: Mr. Speaker, unlike the government and unlike the Prime Minister, what we are interested in is democracy.
Jean Chrétien blew about $50 million a year dispensing Liberal sweetness from his secret honey pot. The Prime Minister has backtracked on yet another of his hollow promises to improve government transparency by deciding to extend the cloak of secrecy surrounding this unity slush fund.
What is the Prime Minister hiding from Canadians? Is he afraid that his party will sink yet further in the polls if the truth comes out?
Anne McLellan: Mr. Speaker, if I were the official opposition I would be worried about the polls.
I want to reassure everyone that the unity reserve was discontinued in budget 2004. No new project has been initiated by this government through the reserve. All expenditures that drew on the unity reserve were routinely reported in the public accounts and therefore are part of the public record.
I ask all members to give Treasury Board the opportunity to compile the information, but it is all in the public record.
Sponsorship ProgramMs. Caroline St-Hilaire (Longueuil, BQ): Mr. Speaker, this morning's Globe and Mail revealed that the Liberal candidate in Ottawa Centre, Richard Mahoney, has privately confessed that the team of the current Prime Minister discreetly intervened with Jean Chrétien to get rid of Chuck Guité, having known well before the first reports came out in 2000 that the sponsorship program posed a problem.
How can the Prime Minister, who knew about this and is now telling people, “If you know something, speak up”, explain that his people stopped there, and decided to keep the problem a secret, in short, allowed the sponsorship scandal to continue?
Anne McLellan: Mr. Speaker, I have no intention of commenting on gossip or hearsay that is found in some article in the newspaper.
Let me comment on what the Prime Minister is doing to get to the bottom of the sponsorship program and to learn the truth in relation to what happened with regard to that program. As we know, the public accounts committee is at work.
I call upon all members of the opposition to stop stonewalling the work of that committee, stop wasting the time of public officials who sit in that room waiting for these people to get their act together, and work with government members on this side of the House to learn the truth.
Caroline St-Hilaire: Mr. Speaker, let us not be taken for fools. Richard Mahoney is one of the PM's close advisors, as the Deputy Prime Minister is well aware.
Will the government acknowledge that, if Richard Mahoney is today refusing to comment on these embarrassing revelations, it is because the Prime Minister had been aware of the situation since at least the year 2000 and deliberately chose to keep quiet?
Anne McLellan: Mr. Speaker, as I said, no one is going to comment, as far as I am concerned, on hearsay, rumours and gossip that appears in the newspaper.
I would bring the opposition back to the fact that we on this side of the House want to learn the truth in and around the sponsorship program. That is why it is so distressing to see members of the public accounts committee from the opposition parties continue to stonewall and hold up the work of the committee, as opposed to getting to the bottom of this matter.
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the government seems to be suffering from the disease of inability. Inability to guarantee that Chuck Guité will appear before the committee prior to the election, and now the President of the Treasury Board is suffering from the same disease, since he says he is unable to provide documents on the national unity fund, which was used to fund the sponsorship scandal, despite the commitments by members of the Prime Minister's Office.
Can the government guarantee that these documents will be available before the election is called?
Joe Jordan: Mr. Speaker, as has been repeated many times in the last 20 minutes, the President of the Treasury Board has instructed that the supplementary estimates be examined and the list compiled. The information will be forthcoming as soon as the government is in a position to provide a complete picture of what happened.
Yvan Loubier: Mr. Speaker, these documents should have been available a week ago now, and we are still waiting. The government has used all kinds of pretexts to delay having to produce the list of events paid for by the same fund used for the sponsorship scandal. We can see right through the government's little game.
Will the President of the Treasury Board stop playing games and make these documents public before the election?
Joe Jordan: Mr. Speaker, just to repeat the answer again to the same question, Treasury Board is working through the various departments that had moneys allocated from this fund. We are going to compile that list. When the information is available, we will make it public.
Hon. Lorne Nystrom (Regina—Qu'Appelle, NDP): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister.
The Prime Minister has claimed that he wants to get to the truth and to the bottom of the Liberal corruption scandal. It is time that the truth did come out. I would like to now blow the whistle on another Liberal ad scam.
I want to know whether or not the Deputy Prime Minister can confirm that the Prime Minister received a memo dated April 19, 1994, from his then chief of staff, pushing officials in government about which Liberal ad firms to use in the Canada savings bonds ad strategy campaign which was worth millions of dollars?
Anne McLellan: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member's question refers to correspondence that was discussed in the House some weeks ago. I think our responses at that time clarified that situation.
Lorne Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, this memo I have today was never raised in the House of Commons. It is from the then chief of staff to the Prime Minister, Terrie O'Leary, and the Prime Minister is clearly copied on the memo, which is now public for the first time and I am willing to table it.
It tells officials which Liberal ad firms are to compete for this multi-million dollar ad campaign. The top firm on the list is McKim Communications, the same firm that assisted the Prime Minister in his Liberal leadership bid.
In light of this, will the government agree to expand the standing committee's terms of reference to include a probe into the activities of the Prime Minister?
Hon. Walt Lastewka (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Works and Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the public accounts committee has been dealing with a number of items.
The problem that we have had in the public accounts committee is the stonewalling and filibustering of the opposition while we have been trying to ensure that all the data goes to the committee. In fact, the opposition is slowing down which people are going to appear as witnesses over the next two weeks.
If we had not had the filibuster, we would have been able to tackle more of the agenda items. The opposition is filibustering and it has slowed down the committee, and in fact wasted the Auditor General's time and Norman Steinberg's time.
Mr. Loyola Hearn (St. John's West, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the public accounts committee is televised so the people across the country know the truth.
The President of the Treasury Board is quoted as comparing the difficulties in compiling a list of projects funded by the secret unity fund to tracking down all the contracts under the sponsorship scandal.
What he is trying to say is that the government does not want to release any of the information. What has it found out in this past week that it does not want the public to know?
Joe Jordan: Mr. Speaker, there is just so much wrong with that, that it is probably going to take the 18 questions the opposition plans on asking today on this to get to the facts.
Here is one. All amounts allocated out of the reserve were released to the departments for programs via Treasury Board submissions and would have appeared in either main or supplementary estimates.
There is nothing secret about that. Take the secret part out, keep the questions coming, and we will get to the truth.
Loyola Hearn: Mr. Speaker, a senior government official has called the secret slush fund a honey pot.
Before the days of indoor plumbing we used to have the honey bucket. That is what the slush fund should be called because it stinks to high heaven.
Once again the Prime Minister is searching for ways to avoid releasing pertinent information. What does it take to flush the truth out of the government?
Joe Jordan: Mr. Speaker, apparently I must have spoken too quickly. All amounts allocated out of the reserve were released to the departments for programs via Treasury Board submissions and would have appeared in either the main or supplementary estimates.
There is nothing secret about that. The member has just wasted a question. We are down to 17.
Mr. Stockwell Day (Okanagan—Coquihalla, CPC): Mr. Speaker, when the Prime Minister was first asked about the secret unity fund, he said that he knew nothing.
The former unity minister said that was not true, the Prime Minister knew, and they all knew. However, the Prime Minister said that he still knew nothing.
Yesterday Eddie Goldenberg said that he must have known because he told him about it every year. The Prime Minister then came out and said that he knew, everybody knew.
Auditor General Sheila Fraser said she did not know because nobody told her. The Prime Minister said that she was wrong because it was in the public accounts. The President of the Treasury Board said that he could not find it.
The Prime Minister said that it was a normal accounting procedure. However, a senior accounting official said that it was a honey pot without any guidelines.
Mr. Speaker,--
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. Deputy Prime Minister.
Anne McLellan: Mr. Speaker, let us be absolutely plain about this fund.
All expenditures that drew on the unity reserve were routinely reported in the public accounts and are therefore part of the public record. There is nothing secret here.
Treasury Board is now compiling information regarding the use of the reserve. As soon as that work is done those records will be made public.
Stockwell Day: Mr. Speaker, as a former provincial finance minister, I used to sit with today's Prime Minister when he was finance minister. He would tell the provincial finance ministers year after year how he had to slash health care.
He knew every dollar and every dime that he slashed from health care and education. Year after year he would assure us there was no secret fund and that the cuts would have to come on the backs of Canadians painfully standing in long lineups.
Will the Prime Minister simply stand up and apologize for misleading us about this secret fund and for slashing health care when he had money to spend? Why does he not just stand up and say he is sorry?
Anne McLellan: Mr. Speaker, the only thing I have to say on this, because there was no secret fund, is that perhaps if the members of the opposition stopped using the main estimates to keep their doors open and actually read them, they would know all about this fund.
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères—Les-Patriotes, BQ): Mr. Speaker, Chuck Guité's testimony in 2002 is clearly useful but incomplete because he spoke only about the three identical Groupaction reports, and the Liberals know it. However, the Prime Minister, who claims he wants to get to the bottom of the sponsorship scandal, says that the Standing Committee on Public Accounts must hear from Chuck Guité again, but without closing the door to the possibility of a report.
Since the Prime Minister is the one who decides when to call the election, can he assure us that Chuck Guité will appear again before the committee, not after the election, but as scheduled on April 22?
Anne McLellan: Mr. Speaker, as I said yesterday, we on this side of the House are very pleased that Mr. Guité will appear before the public accounts committee on April 22.
I know that everyone on this side of the House looks forward to hearing what he has to say because we have been absolutely clear that we want to learn the truth.
Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Speaker, the Deputy Prime Minister suggested yesterday that it would be desirable that Chuck Guité appear on April 22.
Does the government realize that the public does not need wishes alone, but also the assurance that Chuck Guité will appear before the committee on April 22, and not after the election?
Anne McLellan: Mr. Speaker, as I said yesterday and have just said in response to the hon. member's first question, it is my understanding, based on the motion of the public accounts committee yesterday, that Mr. Guité will appear before that committee on April 22. We on this side of the House look forward to Mr. Guité's testimony on that day.
Employment InsuranceMonique Guay: Mr. Speaker, on the eve of the election, the government is waking up and realizing the extent of the problem it has caused in the employment insurance program. In two elections now, it has promised the people that it would change the program. It has not done so in four years. Worse yet, it did not announce anything in the recent budget and, what is more, the Prime Minister even voted against the motion put forward by my colleague from Charlevoix to recognize special status for seasonal work.
If the government is serious, why does it not take action now, before the election?
Hon. Eleni Bakopanos (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development (Social Economy), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we believe it is action, not opposition motions, that will move things forward in this matter.
First, we have made changes with respect to employment, precisely to help seasonal workers. This government is committed to this, the Prime Minister is committed to it, and the minister responsible is committed to it. Moreover, we have already committed $500 million a year to find long-term solutions for the problem of seasonal workers. These are not motions.
Monique Guay: Mr. Speaker, the time for committees, studies and trial balloons is over. This government has a monumental surplus and must stop making campaign promises and start taking action before the election. It has the means to do so and there certainly are people who need it.
Does the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development realize that, if nothing is done before the election, the people of Quebec will remember?
Eleni Bakopanos: Mr. Speaker, there are many things the people of Quebec will remember, but it is not motions that will get the ball rolling, it is action.
Action has already been taken with respect to seasonal workers. At this time, our departments are having discussions regarding the regions of Charlevoix and Lac-Saint-Jean—Saguenay, among others, specifically to find a strategy for lasting employment.
As for credibility with respect to employment, it is this government that has credibility.
RCMP Pension FundMr. David Anderson (Cypress Hills—Grasslands, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the RCMP is being investigated over the sponsorship scandal. Now we find out that it also has an ongoing internal investigation of its own pension fund. The RCMP has the responsibility to be transparent in these investigations; however, it turns out the pension fund investigation was unknown to anyone but a few senior officers.
Why has this report been kept secret from the 20,000 members of the force and its pensioners?
Anne McLellan: Mr. Speaker, the RCMP pension plan is administered in accordance with government and RCMP policies and regulations.
I am aware that the RCMP conducted an internal audit of the administration of its plan and that some irregularities were identified. I have been assured that no funds are missing from the RCMP pension plan and the RCMP continues to review this matter.
David Anderson: Mr. Speaker, when the RCMP was found to be involved in the Prime Minister's sponsorship mess, it called in an outside police force to investigate.
Billions of dollars are tied up in this pension fund. Most of the management of it is done from inside the RCMP. The problems related to it are internal RCMP issues. The audit is being done by RCMP officers. There is far too much room for a conflict of interest and once again Canadians deserve better.
Will the minister commit to bringing in outside investigators to get to the bottom of this matter?
Anne McLellan: Mr. Speaker, I want to make it absolutely clear that I have been assured that no funds are missing from the RCMP's pension plan. It has conducted an internal audit.
The RCMP continues to review this matter. It would be inappropriate for any of us to assume what may or may not happen as this review continues in the future.
National SecurityMr. Bill Casey (Cumberland—Colchester, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada is demanding ports like Halifax to establish a high level of security as of July 1, but it is not providing the resources to do that. Meanwhile, its competitors, like Boston, have received millions of dollars in grants from their federal government. Boston has received three grants of over $5 million totally dedicated to security.
How can the Government of Canada expect Halifax or other Canadian ports to provide a high level of security and still remain competitive if their competition gets millions of dollars in help and the Canadian ports are left hung out to dry?
Hon. Tony Valeri (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would draw the hon. member's attention to the budget that was tabled in the House where $605 million was allocated for security. Marine security is part of that security envelope.
I said the other day that we would meet the July 1 target to meet the international standards. Why? Because trade is important to this country. Security is important to this country. The government will ensure that our ports are able to compete globally.
Bill Casey: Mr. Speaker, while the government is talking rhetoric, the port of Halifax has to buy its own boat. It does not have the resources to man it, to crew it, for waterside security. Meanwhile, Boston has the total force of the U.S. coast guard to provide waterside security.
How can a Canadian port that has to provide its own security compete with the U.S. ports? How can it maintain a high level of security if it is all done on an ad hoc basis, when the competition has the United States government and the U.S. coast guard providing its waterside security?
Tony Valeri: Mr. Speaker, in order to deal with the security of ports, all of the ports across this country have supplied their security plans in order to meet the July 1 deadline. Those plans have been reviewed. The money in the budget, to the tune of $605 million, of which marine security is very much a part, will be allocated to meet the security plans advanced by the ports of this country. Why? Because trade is important to this country and security is very important to Canadians. The government stands behind our ports in order to compete globally.
JusticePaddy Torsney: Mr. Speaker, the special committee on the non-medical use of drugs examined the issues related to marijuana use in this country and made recommendations for changing legislation. The members were unanimous that we wanted action on the issue of drug impaired driving.
My question is for the Minister of Justice. What is taking place? What can we anticipate? How can police officers deal better with this issue?
Hon. Irwin Cotler (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for Burlington for raising this important question and also for her excellent work on chairing the special committee that examined Bill C-10.
I hope to shortly introduce amendments to the Criminal Code that will facilitate the detection and prosecution of drug impaired driving.
Government AdvertisingMr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern Shore, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I would like to warn the government that Canadians are not amused. When it comes to corruption, the Prime Minister likes to blame the previous administration, yet this one claims that it is new.
When it comes to the ads, the Liberal government only speaks to things done by the last Liberal government when the Prime Minister was not even in cabinet. Student loans, Chrétien; age drug bill, Chrétien; health money, Chrétien; yet corruption, Chrétien.
Will the Deputy Prime Minister tell us, is this Liberal government the same as the old Liberal government? If it is, will it take those ads off the air?
Anne McLellan: Mr. Speaker, I find it interesting that at least two of the opposition parties have been running ads. Those ads have nothing to do with the priorities of Canadians, if we listen to them.
It is only our ads on this side of the House that speak to the issues that Canadians care about. What do we see our Prime Minister talking to Canadians about in those ads? Health care, education, the issues that matter to Canadians, their families and their communities.
Air CanadaPeter Stoffer: What utter nonsense, Mr. Speaker. I will try another minister, the transport minister.
On April 15 Air Canada and its employees face a very crucial day. If Air Canada is allowed to fall, it will have a devastating effect on the 30,000 employees and their families. It will have a devastating effect on communities across this country. It will have a devastating effect on our economy.
The transport minister said he likes to stand behind our port security. Will he now tell the employees and the people of Canada that he will stand behind that airline and support its employees? Will he please tell the House what is the government's game plan?
Tony Valeri: Mr. Speaker, I can advise the hon. member, as I have done in the past, that I expect the unions, the airline and the investors to work out their differences in order to come to a successful resolution to the Air Canada restructuring.
The CCAA process has been extended. I believe it would be counterproductive to prejudge the outcome.
Sponsorship ProgramMr. Gerald Keddy (South Shore, CPC): Mr. Speaker, a long string of people connected to the sponsorship scandal have been fired or suspended. They include Alfonso Gagliano, Michel Vennat, André Ouellet, Jean Pelletier and Marc LeFrançois, yet David Dingwall's name is noticeably absent. Allan Cutler's testimony states that David Dingwall was intimately involved in the removal of normal practices and safeguards at public works.
Will the minister responsible for the mint suspend Mr. Dingwall until questions about his involvement in this scandal have been answered?
Walt Lastewka: Mr. Speaker, I find it very, very disappointing that the member of the opposition would say that the schedule to meet with witnesses has been derailed. That opposition party, with the rest, spent four hours filibustering to make sure that we could not release Mr. Guité's information, to make sure we could not get to the schedule for next week and the following week. I find his question totally out of order.
Gerald Keddy: Mr. Speaker, Allan Cutler's testimony that all sponsorship decisions were taken with the approval of the Minister of Public Works is credible. One former minister was fired. Meanwhile the former minister who supervised the creation of the sponsorship program and the removal of normal safeguards remains the head of the Royal Canadian Mint, which is once again shrouded in controversy.
Why at the very least has the Prime Minister not suspended David Dingwall?
John McKay: Mr. Speaker, the member opposite knows very well all of the processes that are in place with respect to this issue. It is a very strange process involved where the opposition appears to wish to summarily dispense of an individual and his job without due process ever being exercised. If in fact we are to go without due process, then I suppose we could fire a whole bunch of people, but this makes absolutely no sense. Mr. Dingwall, like everyone else--
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for Athabasca.
Government ContractsMr. David Chatters (Athabasca, CPC): Mr. Speaker, yesterday the parliamentary secretary brushed off the member for Lakeland's question regarding the $1 billion contract to Royal LePage. When the finance minister was minister of government supply and services, he cancelled the contract because even he could not stand the stench of corruption and bribery surrounding it.
There were alleged internal and RCMP investigations but we have never heard any results or recommendations. Does the government intend to table the results of these investigations or will this be yet another Liberal cover-up?
Walt Lastewka: Mr. Speaker, there were some challenges to the tendering process. It went in front of the CITT. The CITT forwarded that to the department. The department has rebid the process. The department is now evaluating the tender and the results of that tender will be announced shortly.
Dave Chatters: Mr. Speaker, again the parliamentary secretary says that the contract has been retendered, but nothing has changed in the retendering process to protect it from the kind of abuses we heard about last time.
Why would Canadians believe that the process would be any fairer this time than it was the last time if nothing has changed?
Walt Lastewka: Mr. Speaker, after receiving the CITT information, the department met with stakeholders to get their information. The information was provided. The new tendering went out. The new tendering bids have come in. We are now evaluating them and the answer will be given shortly.
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques, BQ): Mr. Speaker, we have learned that the government has decided to have its paper money printed in Germany. This decision puts 110 employees out of work in Beauharnois.
Can the government tell the House whether it thinks it is right to contribute to unemployment among Quebec workers by choosing to have its paper money printed in Germany?
John McKay: Mr. Speaker, what is true about that question is that the paper will be purchased from a foreign source because after a proper tendering process, the proper paper which would be adequate for fraud purposes, et cetera, was not available in this country. However, the other part of that question is that all of the printing of the money will be done here in Canada.
Paul Crête: Mr. Speaker, this is not the first time that ministers have defended the indefensible. It is not the first time, either, that such a dubious decision has been made. In 1998 a similar decision on the paper for passports was overturned thanks to the action of a Bloc Quebecois member.
Can the minister assure the House that the government will change its decision and apply common sense?
John McKay: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member would agree with me that in any tendering process, in any procurement process, Canada should look for the best possible product at the best possible price. That is exactly what happened here. In this instance, that product will be received. When it comes to printing the money, the money will actually be printed here. I think that is a perfectly sensible, legitimate use of taxpayers' funds.
AgricultureMr. Rick Casson (Lethbridge, CPC): Mr. Speaker, primary producers, the devastated trucking industry, other related industries, businesses and communities are all part of the BSE crisis. However, many of these were left out at the recent photo op announcement made by the Prime Minister. The Liberals have been so busy covering up scandals and running away from real responsibilities they have once again forgotten to put together a solid plan and vision for our agricultural community.
I ask the minister, where is the detailed plan our agriculture industry will need to get through the coming year of uncertainty?
Hon. Mark Eyking (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food (Agri-Food), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member opposite for finally asking a question today about agriculture.
The government is totally committed to agriculture. We had three programs rolled out last year. Two weeks ago the Prime Minister announced $1 billion to the agricultural industry. As we speak, the Prime Minister is in B.C. meeting with the cattle producers of British Columbia to help them with their problems.
Rick Casson: Mr. Speaker, April 7 will mark the end of the U.S. department of agriculture comment period on the proposed rule change that will allow our live cattle under 30 months of age into the United States. With the U.S. getting closer to its requirements to allow trade in live cattle and other ruminants, what has the government done to facilitate a smooth transition to an open border? More specifically, where are the detailed regulations our industry will have to implement to facilitate year-round importation of U.S. cattle?
Mark Eyking: Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for a question on the beef industry. As the member opposite knows, we are in a comment period in the United States and it is going to be over on April 7.
I have to compliment both sides of the House for meeting with congressmen in the United States about this issue. The minister is constantly talking to secretary Veneman. After April 7 all we can hope for is that the U.S. government bases its decision on science.
The EnvironmentYolande Thibeault: Mr. Speaker, I have a question that deals with the environment.
The One-Tonne challenge was launched on March 26, 2004. Can the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of the Environment tell this House why Canadians should take part in this challenge?
Hon. Serge Marcil (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Saint-Lambert for her question.
Through the Kyoto Protocol implementation process, we have become aware that Canadians produce on average more than five tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions each, annually. In order to achieve the Canadian objectives in terms of GHG emissions, we are calling upon individual Canadians to take part in a campaign to try to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions by one tonne--about 20%—per person.
Liberal Party of CanadaMr. John Duncan (Vancouver Island North, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister was in British Columbia contradicting himself by appointing Liberal candidates. While he was there, a B.C. judge released a summary of the search warrants for the homes and offices of individuals, including key figures in the Prime Minister's leadership campaign.
Can the Prime Minister assure the House that while he was in B.C. he did not meet with a single member of his B.C. leadership campaign who is part of the RCMP investigation into drug dealing and money laundering?
Hon. Mauril Bélanger (Deputy Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I fail to see how this has anything to do with the government's business. Therefore we are not going to provide an answer.
John Duncan: Mr. Speaker, I think it has everything to do with Liberal ethics and Liberal corruption. It is long overdue for the Prime Minister to assure British Columbians that persons who are currently part of the RCMP investigation into drug dealing and money laundering will not play a role in the Liberal campaign in British Columbia.
Will the Prime Minister assure Canadians that he has dismissed these individuals from the Liberal campaign team in B.C. because of their implication in the RCMP investigation?
The Deputy Speaker: That question is not in order.
The hon. member for Sherbrooke.
The EnvironmentMr. Serge Cardin (Sherbrooke, BQ): Mr. Speaker, although the Minister of Foreign Affairs is now aware that, by virtue of the International Boundary Waters Treaty, one of the contracting parties can make a reference to the International Joint Commission on any aspect with the potential to impact negatively upon it, he still appears to be unaware of the urgency of the matter. The public is concerned. The region needs to invest time and money in order to make its views heard and protect its sources of drinking water, but in the meantime the minister claims to be discussing the matter with the United States, rather than taking action.
If the minister steadfastly refuses to refer the matter to the International Joint Commission, what assurance can he give the public, and on whose authority?
Hon. Dan McTeague (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I can assure the hon. member who has asked this question that the government is very concerned about the issue of drinking water for everyone in this country.
The member suggests we ought perhaps to go before a court. We have already sought an opinion and are waiting for it. In the meantime, however, I must point out that our government is indeed very much aware of the need to ensure that everyone has access to drinking water.
Fisheries and OceansMr. Alan Tonks (York South—Weston, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, last June the government wharf to Saturna Island was severely damaged by fire. Could the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans inform the House in terms of what the government's plans are to repair that wharf?
Shawn Murphy: Mr. Speaker, last June there was an unfortunate incident on Saturna Island where the wharf burnt. The Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and the department have been working very closely with the community organizations. They are going to take over the management of the wharf. Yesterday, the minister announced that his department will replace the wharf.
Sponsorship ProgramMr. Jim Gouk (Kootenay—Boundary—Okanagan, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the Liberals claimed that the opposition tried to block the testimony of Chuck Guité but the exact opposite was true. We simply wanted the old staledated testimony to be released in conjunction with the new live testimony scheduled for April 22.
The Liberal members wanted the old testimony released before the parliamentary break to enable them to claim the public had a scapegoat and the Liberals could call an election. Devastating polls may now thwart the PM's plan.
Why were the Liberal members not prepared to wait two parliamentary sitting days before releasing two year old testimony?
Walt Lastewka: Mr. Speaker, it is very strange for the opposition, especially the members over there, not to want to see Mr. Guité's information.
I am sure this will give them a couple of weeks to have better questions in public accounts than they have ever had before. Mr. Guité made remarks two years ago, and not only the people in the House should see them all, but all Canadians should be able to see them.
Saint-Hubert AirportMr. Mario Laframboise (Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, BQ): Mr. Speaker, negotiations for the divestiture of the Saint-Hubert airport, on Montreal's South Shore, are coming to a close.
Can the Minister of Transport guarantee us that his government will provide funding for all infrastructure improvements required by the airport, as the Grand-Longueuil community called for, particularly the DASH-L group, which stands for the groupe de Développement de l'aéroport Saint-Hubert—Longueuil?
Tony Valeri: Mr. Speaker, as in every case, when the government receives proposals, they are under consideration. We are reviewing what is before us. I obviously cannot provide the member with a guarantee today in the House. I can only assure the hon. member that we are looking at it. It is in the best interest of the community and Canada to ensure that we have the kind of transportation system that contributes to competition and to efficiency in passenger and cargo, and we will take action.
I would like to thank the hon. member for the question and take it under advisement.
FinanceAlexa McDonough: Mr. Speaker, Canada is number one in contention to host the 2006 International Summit on Microcredit. This would be the largest global conference in Atlantic Canada's history.
Microcredit is a proven strategy for lifting the poorest families out of poverty, domestically and in developing countries through collateral free interest bearing sustainable loans for self-employment.
Detailed planning for the summit to happen in Halifax is completed, except for the required federal contribution to meet the June 1 deadline for final approval.
Will the government today confirm its commitment to meet that deadline to ensure that Canada does not lose out to its second choice European--
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance.
John McKay: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member raises a good question with respect to microcredit. It is something that the government has supported in a variety of initiatives and ways, both nationally and internationally. It is an excellent way in which to get money to less than credit worthy customers.
In general principles the Government of Canada supports the initiative. However, I am not in a position to comment on it with respect to her specific request.
JusticeMarcel Proulx: Mr. Speaker, secure communities and the safety of our children are priorities for my constituents.
Could the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness advise the House of the progress of Bill C-16, the Sex Offender Registry Act?
Anne McLellan: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased this morning to advise the House that Bill C-16 received royal assent last evening.
The bill provides for the creation of a national database of convicted sex offenders for use by police to investigate crimes of a sexual nature. The database registry has been unanimously supported by all provincial and territorial governments.
I want to thank all members who participated and cooperated in the House and in the other place, to ensure that the bill, which protects some of our most vulnerable members of our society, in fact has the protection that--
The Deputy Speaker: It seems that we have a little time left over. The hon. member for Verchères—Les-Patriotes.
TaiwanStéphane Bergeron: Mr. Speaker, in response to a question I asked on March 12 about Taiwan's request for observer status at the World Health Organization, the Minister of Foreign Affairs informed me that the bylaws of this international organization did not permit such status to be granted.
If Niue and the Cook Islands, which have respective populations of fewer than 2,000 and 20,000 inhabitants and which are not independent states, if the Order of Malta, Vatican City, the Palestinian Liberation Organization, the International Federation of the Red Cross and the Red Crescent Societies can all have observer status at the WHO, why, according to the minister, should Taiwan continue to be denied this status?
Dan McTeague: Mr. Speaker, I am aware of the member's interest in this matter. He has worked very long and very hard on this. There are many political issues relating to globalization that affect this matter. It must be given full and serious consideration.
To answer the hon. member, the Department of Foreign Affairs is implementing measures to ensure balance in all the positions we take.
Air CanadaPeter Stoffer: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Transport rose earlier and expected the investors, Air Canada and the unions to solve all their problems. My question was very clear. April 15 is the deadline. If it does not work, what does the government plan for April 16?
The people of Canada and the employees have a right to know. The communities across the country and our economy has a right to know what the government's plan is for Air Canada if it does not work out on April 16.
Tony Valeri: Mr. Speaker, what we have today are the unions, the airline and investors around a table negotiating for an outcome that will be in the best interests of the company, and the workers, I might add.
What the hon. member is asking me to do is to comment on a hypothetical situation. I will not do that.
The Prime MinisterJim Gouk: Mr. Speaker, the coming election is all about trust. As finance minister, the Prime Minister cut health and social transfers by $25 billion. His cuts devastated the health care system, doubling wait times for Canadians. His social transfers also devastated education, doubling tuition costs for students. He reduced military funding and increased the gas tax, without providing increased funding for highway infrastructure. Now he wants us to believe that he is the person who will save us from his own actions.
How can Canadians trust their future to the man who caused all the problems in the first place?
Anne McLellan: Mr. Speaker, let us reflect upon the actions of this Prime Minister, our former finance minister.
This Prime Minister dealt with the deficit. We do not have a deficit any more. Canada is the only G-8 country that does not have a deficit, seven years in a row. This Prime Minister put the debt on a permanent downward track.
We have seen unprecedented economic growth during the time that this Prime Minister was finance minister.
We do not get the money out of thin air to fund health care and education. We only get it because--
Presence in GalleryThe Deputy Speaker: Order, please. I draw the attention of hon. members to the presence in the gallery of the Honourable Archie Lang, Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources for the Government of Yukon.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Points of OrderLorne Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, in question period today I referred to a memo. Members across the way asked me to table the memo. I ask for unanimous consent now to table the memo I referred to during my question about the activities regarding the former minister of finance and current Prime Minister.
The Deputy Speaker: Does the member have consent to table the document?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Agreed

Routine Proceedings
Committees of the HouseHon. Judy Sgro (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 109, I am pleased to present today, in both official languages, the government's response to the 25th report of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts, concerning chapter 5 of the April 2003 report of the Auditor General of Canada.
John Harvard: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 32(2) I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to the report of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade entitled, “Reinvigorating Economic Relations Between Canada and Asia-Pacific”.
Order in Council AppointmentsDan McTeague: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to table, in both official languages, a number of order in council appointments made recently by the government.
Government Response to PetitionsDan McTeague: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8) I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government responses to 157 petitions.
Committees of the HouseMark Eyking: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 109, I would like to present, in both official languages, the government's response to the third report of the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food entitled, “The Investigation and the Government Response Following the Discovery of a Single Case of Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy”, which was tabled in the House of Commons on November 4, 2003.
Marcel Proulx: Mr. Speaker, I have three reports to table.
First, I have the honour to present the 16th report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs on issues relating to electoral boundaries.
Pursuant to Standing Order 109, the committee requests that the government table a comprehensive response to the report.
I also have the honour of presenting the 17th report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs on the resources needed by members of Parliament to ensure effective representation in certain electoral constituencies.
Finally, I have the honour of presenting the 18th report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs regarding its order of reference from the House of Commons of Tuesday, February 24, 2004, in relation to the main estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2005, in regard to vote 5 under Parliament—House of Commons.
The committee reports the same.
Paul Forseth: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the second report of the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates regarding the Governor General of Canada, the role, duties and funding for activities.
Pursuant to Standing Order 109, the committee requests that the government table a comprehensive response to the report.
I also have the honour to present, in both official languages, the third report of the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates. Pursuant to Standing Order 111(1), the committee recommends that the proposed appointment of Ms. Maria Barrados, as president of the Public Service Commission of Canada, be confirmed.
Canada Elections ActMr. Chuck Cadman (Surrey North, CPC): 
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-513, an act to amend the Canada Elections Act (candidate selection).

Mr. Speaker, in response to the hundreds of communications from Surrey North constituents and many others across Canada, I introduce on their behalf an amendment to the Canada Elections Act.
Canadians are growing increasingly concerned about the mass signing up of thousands of members of special interest or ethnic groups in the riding associations, simply to secure nominations. Many instant members have little or no idea of in what they are participating. Many colleagues here have expressed the same concern from all sides of the House.
Canadians should participate, but this practice of instant membership risks distorting the electoral process. In many cases, instant members, who are ineligible to vote, whether for reason of age or citizenship, effectively choose election candidates. This bill aims to address those concerns.
Despite years of warning signs, political parties have shown no appetite to police themselves in this regard. Therefore, I believe it is time for Parliament to act.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)
Special Service Medal for Domestic Operations ActAlexa McDonough: 
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-514, an act respecting the establishment and award of a Special Service Medal for Domestic Operations (SSM-DO).

Mr. Speaker, it is my honour today to introduce this bill, entitled an act respecting the establishment and award of a special service medal for domestic operations. I was very much inspired to introduce this bill by the outstanding work that I saw among the armed forces personnel in the Swissair 111 tragedy and the hurricane Juan devastation that occurred in Halifax and surrounding communities.
This bill would recognize the contribution of women and men of the Canadian armed forces who participate in rescue and salvage operations during national emergencies in Canada. This does not happen just in Nova Scotia. We have seen it in other provinces in floods, fires and ice storms. Of course, what they do is work around the clock without remuneration or overtime and often in collaboration with civilians who in fact are remunerated for their work.
The very least we can do is recognize that outstanding contribution through the awarding of a medal.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)
PetitionsRick Casson: Mr. Speaker, I rise today on behalf of my colleague and my neighbour from Medicine Hat to present three separate petitions that deal with the same issue.
They come from wonderful towns like Redcliff, Bow Island, Seven Persons, Tilley, Brooks and Dunmore. It is a wonderful part of the world. I know that, Mr. Speaker, because you have told me you have been through there and you really liked it.
These petitioners call upon Parliament to pass legislation to recognize the institution of marriage in federal law as being a lifelong union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others.
Jay Hill: Mr. Speaker, it is indeed an honour and a privilege for me to present this petition in the House of Commons today. It is from Canadians all across the land, from British Columbia to Ontario to Nova Scotia, who are concerned about the housing that our armed forces personnel live in on some of our bases.
Because the rents have been increasing for these armed forces personnel and because in many cases the housing itself is substandard and deplorable, the petitioners are asking Parliament to immediately suspend any future rent increases for the accommodation provided by the Canadian Forces Housing Agency until such time as the Government of Canada makes substantive improvements to the living conditions of housing provided for our military families.
Questions on the Order PaperDan McTeague: Mr. Speaker, Question No. 65 will be answered today.
Question No. 65Mr. Maurice Vellacott: Does the government intend to end the practice of maintaining two sets of financial statements by ending the practice of “netting” in all the government’s financial statements, not just the public accounts; and if so, when?
Hon. Reg Alcock (President of the Treasury Board and Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, Lib.): The official financial results of the government are published in the Public Accounts of Canada and in the annual financial report of the Government of Canada on an annual basis.
The practice of netting revenues and expenses in the public accounts and in the annual financial report changed in fiscal year 2002-03. This change involved eliminating the netting of some revenues and expenses and presenting these only on a gross basis instead of both net and gross.
These financial statements received an unqualified, clean, audit opinion from the Auditor General. The Auditor General viewed this change as a major improvement in financial reporting.
The government does not have immediate plans to discontinue the practice of presenting the net authorities to be voted in estimates, that is, vote netting, but the government’s commitment to increasing transparency and improving reporting to Parliament will provide an opportunity to look at how the presentation and transparency of this information could be improved in the future.
The public accounts also present expenditures against budget; however, the budget is prepared on a net basis. Adjustments were made to the budget figures presented in the public accounts to disclose budgets on a gross basis, so that they could be accurately compared against actual amounts expended. The Auditor General endorsed this approach and commended the government for presenting expenditures against budget in the public accounts.
Fiscal year 2002-03 was the first year that the public accounts disclosed expenditures against budget. This was in response to recommendations for public sector accounting from the Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants. The federal government was early in its adoption of this recommendation.
In addition, the government has already signaled its intention to review the Financial Administration Act, to look at issues of accountabilities and discipline.
We will continue to engage and consult parliamentarians on these issues.
Questions Passed as Orders for ReturnsDan McTeague: Mr. Speaker, if Question No. 6 could be made an order for return, this return would be tabled immediately.
The Acting Speaker: Is that agreed?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Question No. 6Mr. Rob Merrifield: With regard to grants and contributions made by the government in the riding of Yellowhead for each fiscal year since 1999-2000: ( a ) what was the amount disbursed to each recipient; ( b ) which government department was involved; ( c ) what was the name of the recipient organization or business; and ( d ) what was the address of the recipient organization or business?
(Return tabled)
Dan McTeague: Mr. Speaker, I ask that all remaining questions be allowed to stand.
The Deputy Speaker: Is that agreed?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Deputy Speaker: It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8)( b ), to inform the House that the matter of the failure of the Ministry to respond to petition No. 373-0200 is deemed referred to the Standing Committee on the Environment and Sustainable Development.
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion.
Mario Laframboise: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak on Bill C-25, the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act, which has been introduced by the President of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada.
This bill has been made necessary because of the sponsorship scandal and the desire of the public service to say out loud what people have been thinking to themselves for a long time. The problem is that there are serious situations in the public service. I will give examples of public servants who have even lost their jobs because they dared to blow the whistle. That is why we have Bill C-25 before us today.
The incredible thing is that, despite the government's willingness to introduce this bill in the House, if an election is called between now and the end of April, it will, in fact, be impossible for Parliament to pass this bill.
That could mean that, all during the election campaign, if public servants have anything to say about the government's behaviour, they will not be able to make disclosures, or, if they do, they will have no protection under this legislation because it will not have been passed.
Sometimes even we, as members of Parliament, are poor judges. We want to do the right thing and support the public service. The government, probably for good reasons as well, wanted to introduce this bill. Still, I will take the few minutes available to me to speak about the comments made by the Public Service Alliance, the union that fights for government employees. They have some serious recommendations to make about this bill.
One of the major weaknesses seen by the Public Service Alliance is that the public service integrity commissioner proposed in the bill does not report directly to Parliament but to the office of a minister, which will seriously affect the independence of the office and its credibility within the public service.
If ever there were a desire to blow the whistle on government actions, we would have expected the commissioner responsible for hearing complaints to report directly to Parliament. We do, in fact—particularly the opposition members—offer a degree of neutrality, a guarantee for the public servants who make a complaint to the commissioner who, in turn reports to Parliament. It would have been the guarantee of a degree of neutrality in the analysis and examination of a case.
It has been decided by the government that the commissioner will report to a minister, not Parliament. It is already not easy for public servants to make disclosures, but it is even harder if the commissioner receiving the complaints reports to a minister. That minister is, of course, a colleague of other ministers, against whose department the complaint may be directed. This is totally abnormal and something seen nowhere else but here.
The Liberal Party has been trying to demonstrate its transparency for weeks. It has an opportunity to table a bill to help public servants make disclosures, but the commissioner receiving those disclosures will report to a minister's office. This is exactly like the ethics commissioner reporting to the Prime Minister as he did in the past.
We have spoken out about that connection between the ethics commissioner and the PM, but the integrity commissioner who will be receiving complaints from public servants will be reporting to a minister. This is exactly the same thing. What goes around comes around, where the Liberals are concerned.
Once again, I am reflecting the comments made by the Public Service Alliance concerning the fact that the commissioner has only a power of recommendation after carrying out an investigation. The commissioner cannot, for example, order the person making the disclosure to be reinstated in his position or order certain interim measures to protect the whistleblower in certain cases. For example, a person might be transferred to another department for the duration of the investigation. Certain steps could be taken.
So we have a commissioner who can receive a complaint but has no power to reinstate the person in his position . I will look at the case of Alain Tremblay, which is no secret, as he has held press conferences and been interviewed by the media here in the Outaouais.
He is a public servant from the Aylmer sector of the City of Gatineau who had disclosed the wrongdoing of one of his superiors at the Royal Canadian Mint. The individual was living in Quebec but paying taxes in Ontario, where he had a second residence. He had a scheme going whereby he paid rent to one of his employees in Ontario to avoid paying taxes in Quebec.
Consequently, Mr. Tremblay blew the whistle on his supervisor and ended up losing his job over it. That is the reality. Alain Tremblay lost his job and today he is doing everything he can to get re-hired, saying, “Listen, it is not right that I should lose my job”.
With respect to job loss, the government has quite a convoluted way of doing things. Mr. Tremblay was told that, because of cutbacks in the Department of Human Resources Development Canada, HRDC, where he worked, his services would no longer be required.
The Government of Canada has increased public service spending by 39% in the past five years. It has increased the number of employees and Mr. Tremblay, who was a whistleblower, was told there had been cuts in his department. It is not easy for Mr. Tremblay, nor is it easy for the member for Hull—Aylmer, who supports Mr. Tremblay and is calling for an investigation.
The problem in this case is easy to understand. The federal government decided to use strategy and told a public service whistleblower, “Your position has been eliminated because of budget cuts. You cannot stay here”.
In 2002, Mr. Tremblay had received a note from his supervisor saying that he had continued to excel professionally and personally that year. So, he was kept on in 2003. There were notes describing his excellent performance in his file. He is a good employee, but he disclosed a wrongdoing. He was laid off because his position had been abolished and he will never be re-hired. That is the difficulty for all public servants.
Again, public servants in the Outaouais and Ottawa-Gatineau region vote Liberal in election after election. I am 46 years old and I cannot remember a time when public servants in the Outaouais did not vote for the Liberal Party. What does that party turn around and do? It blames them whenever there are problems because politicians mismanaged public funds and they do not know where the money went.
The Liberal politicians blame public servants. And in an attempt to encourage whistleblowing, they tell public servants who voted for them in the Outaouais and Ottawa-Gatineau region for years on end, “Listen, we will introduce legislation to ensure you can disclose wrongdoing”.
Except that the commissioner responsible for handling the complaints will answer to a department, just as the ethics counsellor answered to the Prime Minister's Office. That is the problem for public servants, who cannot believe this and are extremely skeptical. Furthermore, there is no retroactivity clause either. This means that there is no protection in this legislation for whistleblowers making disclosures relating to the past, such as before the sponsorship scandal.
The government should have included a retroactivity clause. But no, this legislation will only apply to those who will report wrongdoings once it has come into effect. Of course, when the time comes to hear public servants and protect them, statements will have been made and the Liberal Party will probably have tried to sweep the whole sponsorship scandal under the carpet.
While we are waiting for the next election, this sends the following message to public servants: “Do not talk to anyone, otherwise you will suffer the fate of Alain Tremblay, you will lose your job. They will manage to put you in a position that will be terminated. They will try to transfer you to another department that will disappear, because they will have decided to make cuts precisely in that sector of the department where you work, to be absolutely sure that you can never report wrongdoings again”.
The Bloc Quebecois will never accept this and it will always fight for the integrity of public servants, of men and women who work hard to earn a living.
Lorne Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, I too want to say a few words on the whistleblowing legislation that is before the House. I was not a member of the committee that studied it in detail but from my quick reading of the legislation, my understanding is that it is not very adequate and does not go very far at all.
Someone called our office a few days ago suggesting that he was with the RCMP, although I am not sure of his position, but he was concerned that the legislation was not strong enough to protect a whistleblower from the federal public service or indeed from the RCMP. He made the suggestion that a number of things in the RCMP were not going properly. I think he used the words that there was some corruption at certain levels. That was his allegation or his suggestion. However, he was suggesting that the legislation before the House would not be strong enough to protect a whistleblower coming forth and making this information public to the people.
My reading of the legislation suggests that he is probably right when he says that the legislation is not strong enough. We should have stronger legislation to protect public servants who come forward and blow the whistle on any wrongdoings. We had the case last summer where the privacy commissioner had the whistle blown on him, which was what really brought this legislation to the forefront.
It is just part of government accountability to make sure that if public servants realize there is some wrongdoing, be it criminal or otherwise, they should be protected to come forward and provide that information to the appropriate authorities and then, at the appropriate time, make that information public.
That leads me to another concern about the legislation. The person in charge of the whistleblowing information, if the bill goes through the House and through the Senate and gets royal assent, will be responsible, not to the Parliament of Canada but to the appropriate minister, in other words to the government of the day.
[Intervention]
An hon. member: That is ridiculous.
Lorne Nystrom: As my friend from Winnipeg says, that is ridiculous, especially when it comes from a Prime Minister who is talking about a democratic deficit in the country and that he wants to do politics differently.
I was just reading an article in the Vancouver Sun a moment ago where the Prime Minister, who is in British Columbia, is talking about going to Kamloops today to talk about doing politics differently, to talk about accountability and to talk about a more democratic governing process just hours after he appointed three candidates for the Liberal Party to run in ridings. This practice of appointing candidates was used by the former prime minister, Jean Chrétien, as well. If there is anything that is undemocratic, it is appointing a candidate to run in a riding.
It is no wonder some Liberals are embarrassed about this. The former solicitor general from Prince Edward Island is hanging his head in shame, pretending he is reading a newspaper. His esteemed leader, who talks from one side of his mouth about democracy, is appointing people in British Columbia to run in certain ridings because they are afraid to stand for a nomination.
[Intervention]
An hon. member: Big tents are for circuses.
Lorne Nystrom: Somebody mentioned big tents, and I guess they really are for three-ring circuses: three candidates in British Columbia, a three-ring circus in British Columbia, and every one of them nominated.
Scott Brison: And a former NDP premier.
Lorne Nystrom: My friend from Nova Scotia, who truly is a good friend of mine, is a good example because he did it differently. The Prime Minister did not appoint him as a Liberal candidate. He had to go out there and fight for a Liberal nomination against somebody else, if I understand it correctly, and he won the nomination on his own merits.
What happened in British Columbia was that they have three people in a three-ring circus, where he had Liberals competing for nominations and they parachuted in these three people.
I see the member from Nova Scotia is getting to his feet. I am sure he is embarrassed and wants to explain this. He wants to do a mea culpa about what is happening. I will cede the floor to him, Mr. Speaker, because I see he wants to interject on a point of order. No, he is embarrassed and he is leaving the House.
The Deputy Speaker: I am really getting confused here. The last time I checked, only one person could speak at a time. Maybe I am just getting forgetful. Let us try and resume debate.
Hon. Larry Bagnell: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. This is totally off topic of the bill.
The Deputy Speaker: I do not know what to call that but it is certainly not a point of order.
The hon. member for Regina—Qu'Appelle.
Lorne Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, the member for Yukon must not have been listening because it is on topic. We are talking about accountability, a democratic process and making this place more relevant. When candidates are appointed for nominations, we do not expand democracy and we do not make this place more accountable.
What we need to have is a democratic process of electing members to the House of Commons. We should not be appointing people to the other House. That is totally undemocratic. We should have the person responsible for whistleblowing report to the House of Commons, not to a minister of the crown, a minister of the executive or the government of the day. That is not the way to go.
Not too many years ago the government of the day said that we could not have the Chief Electoral Officer report to the House. That now has been changed. We have several other people who report to the House now: the Auditor General, the Commissioner of Official Languages, the privacy commissioner and a number of others.
We have made very slow progress in making this place more accountable to all Canadians and this is the way we should have gone in terms of whistleblowing as well.
I would like to see a Liberal get up in the House before the debate ends and defend the decision that was made that the person responsible for whistleblowing should report to a minister of the crown.
I will tell members across the way that the Liberals will not stay in power forever. For the member for Hull—Aylmer and the member for Ottawa—Vanier, who are listening very attentively to what I am saying, I want to say that they will not be in power forever.
Let us suppose, horror of horrors, that the Conservatives win and the new minister is the member for Wild Rose, Alberta. Would we feel comfortable with him as the minister? The member for Wild Rose is a very esteemed member of the Conservative Party, who is in the inner circle and represents the values of the Conservative Party. We see him thundering in this House. He is certainly at the head of the list as cabinet material, and this is a possibility.
I do not think the Canadian people would ever elect a far right-wing, radical, George Bush republican style Conservative Party. Those guys make Brian Mulroney look like a kitten.
Rick Casson: You should not be talking about an individual like that. Do you want us to start talking about your history?
Lorne Nystrom: You can talk about our history any time you want in the House of Commons.
Could the member across the way explain to the House why this person should not report to the House of Commons? Why should this person report to a cabinet minister and to the government?
They want to reform Parliament and they want reform democracy and here is the opportunity to do so.
Mauril Bélanger: Mr. Speaker, I will not prolong the debate but I could not resist the invitation.
The bill is being referred to committee before second reading, so there is a definition of flexibility in that process. The committee will be able to receive comments and suggestions from all parties. However in the current bill, if I recall, there is not only one but two ministers, so there is bit of flexibility already built into the bill.
However we welcome these suggestions and we welcome the debate at committee.
Rick Casson: Mr. Speaker, I just want to make a couple of comments about the previous speaker's presentation.
In this House we can attack each other on our principles and our policies, but when the member from the NDP gets up and personally attacks the ability of any member in this House, Mr. Speaker, that is completely out of line. I would have hoped that you would have stopped him from continuing his tirade against a member in this House, the member for Wild Rose.
We can go at each other on our policies and what we believe in as units of government, but no one should be able to get up in this House and personally go after someone like that, questioning his ability to be a good member of Parliament. That member is outstanding and has more support in his riding than that member could ever dream of.
Lorne Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I just want to say very briefly that the member should check the record. I was complimenting the member for Wild Rose. I said that he was cabinet material and an esteemed member of the Conservative Party.
The Deputy Speaker: Respectfully, as someone has already suggested, that was not a point of order.
If I may, with regard to the comments from the hon. member for Lethbridge, for whom I have a great deal of respect, I would only offer that the Chair from time to time, of course, takes note, not only of what is said but the mood of this wonderful place. Sometimes the mood is not what we would like it to be, but ultimately in the end the Chair is only able to administer those things that it has been empowered to do and I cannot step beyond those boundaries. The expectations of the hon. member for Lethbridge might be a little bit more than the Chair is able to offer. Resuming debate?
Is the House ready for the question?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Question.
The Deputy Speaker: The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to Standing Order 45, the division stands deferred until Monday, April 19 at the ordinary hour of daily adjournment.
Mauril Bélanger: Mr. Speaker, I believe that if you were to seek it you would find consent to delay the vote on the motion until Tuesday, April 20 at the end of government business.
The Deputy Speaker: Does the House give its consent?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mauril Bélanger: Mr. Speaker, if you were to seek it, I believe you would find there is unanimous consent to call it 1:30 p.m. and proceed now to private members' business.
The Deputy Speaker: Is that agreed?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Deputy Speaker: It being 1:30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's Order Paper.
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from February 19 consideration of the motion that Bill C-246, an act to amend the Income Tax Act (child adoption expenses), be read the second time and referred to a committee.
Rick Casson: Mr. Speaker, it is good to be able to speak to Bill C-246 today. This could be the last hour of sitting of the House in this Parliament if some of the rumours we have heard are true, and I think this legislation is a pretty good way to finish it off, because the member for Prince George--Peace River has brought forward a critical issue that I think should be addressed.
Hopefully this issue will get to the point where it can have a real public hearing and eventually get support from the government and from all members of the House.
As members of Parliament we sometimes get involved with people who are going through adoption issues, particularly people who are trying to bring in children from other countries. A recent case in my riding involved a family that was ready to bring over a young child from Haiti. When all the trouble happened in Haiti, all of the plans went sideways. The family members were absolutely devastated to think that all their plans might go astray. We worked with them to try to solve the problem.
I know of other situations, one in my own family. My wife is adopted. She was adopted by a wonderful, loving family and it is still that way. For a baby to have the opportunity of being taken into a loving family is a great thing and I think it would be wise for any government to facilitate that process as much as it can.
If it is an issue of expense that is stopping families from seeking out the adoption route to find a child to bring into their home to raise as their own, then that issue should be addressed. That is what the member is trying to do with his bill. He wants to make sure that this problem, this one issue, is dealt with.
I know of other young people who for years have been applying to adopt. It is not the financial aspect that has stopped them, and it is heartbreaking. They are willing, they are looking for a child in their lives, and they have the ability, the means, and the love to raise a child in their home, but either they cannot get the process started or they cannot get through it. I know that for some it takes many years. It truly is a blessing when it does finally happen.
The issue here is that here are at least 20,000 young children in Canada who are under the care of the government. That says something in itself. I would bet there are that many families in this country that would willingly adopt those young people, take them into their homes and give them a good start in life.
Two thousand adoptions take place in Canada annually, yet there are 20,000 children under the care of the government. When we see those kinds of numbers we have to realize that we should be moving toward bringing in legislation or regulations that would allow for the smooth transition of those children into these families.
The issue of expense is another matter. The expenses involved to deal with adoption are about $9,000 or $10,000, which is a substantial amount of money. For many families that would be prohibitive and would stop them from moving forward. However, if there were a section in the tax laws of this country that would allow a tax rebate or a tax deduction for that expense, it would help, just to add to the mix of things we need to do to make adoption happen on a more regular basis. Certainly we have to be very careful that the families chosen for young people to go into are the types of families that will raise them in the proper manner. In the vast majority, that is the case.
Even here in Canada, in the Province of Quebec, there is a law like the one the member is proposing. People are allowed to deduct a maximum of $6,000. In the United States, the deduction is $10,000. So we have right here in Canada one province that recognizes the need and the value of this type of situation. Our neighbours to the south have also taken that step. They will help facilitate families coming together. They will facilitate families having the option of choosing a child they want to bring into their families and make it as easy as possible.
I think this is timely. Hopefully the bill can go forward at some time. I know that the member for Prince George--Peace River has been working on this for an extremely long time. When I looked back at one of his private member's bills that he brought forward on another issue, I noted that it did very well once it got to the House and proceeded through the system.
Many times we feel that the hard work we put into these bills it is not worth it, but it is, not only because it could effect change in the end but also because it brings an issue to the floor of the House. Canadians can sit in on the debate and hear the different sides of the debate in the House. I am not sure that we are going to get it today; I think the debate is all going to come from one side of the House, but that is fine. The government will have to respond at some point. Members will have to vote on whether they think this is a good idea or not.
As we look at the whole issue of adoption, there is another statistic. There are 2,000 children adopted from outside the country and brought into Canada. We see some of the horrific pictures of what is going on in different parts of the world and the children always seem to be the ones who are hurt. There are orphans all around the world who need help.
Anything that would allow families to work faster to bring some of these children to Canada and raise them as their own and give them the opportunities, privileges and responsibilities that we as Canadians have is an avenue that we should explore at all costs.
I am completely in favour of the member's initiative. I know from experience about some of the emotion and stress that go along with seeking to adopt, with being accepted in a tentative manner, with families, husbands and wives who visit children and then are rejected for some reason. It is an absolutely heart-wrenching emotional experience. It tears at people when they so badly want a child, cannot have one of their own for whatever reason, and are stopped for various reasons or various blocks get in their way.
I fully support what the member is doing. I know that it perhaps does not fit tight with our party's tax plan, because our party still firmly believes in broad based relief for all families, which would give them options for many things in their lives, for how to spend their money and how to raise their children, but I think this initiative is worthy of our consideration. It is certainly worthy of the support of the government. From what I understood in debate earlier, it does not look like that going to happen and I hope Canadians are watching.
For Canadians who have been involved in adoption issues and have not been able to fulfill their dreams of adopting a child, and if for any reason finances were the problem, they should phone their member of Parliament and phone the government to let them know that they support this initiative and they want members to vote for it.
Bill Casey: Mr. Speaker, I am certainly pleased to participate in the debate today.
I am surprised at how much response I have had in my own riding in support of Bill C-246. Twenty-three constituents have contacted me directly in the last few weeks. It is obviously a very worthy bill and I will be supporting it. I compliment the member for Prince George—Peace River for bringing the bill forward.
In my discussions with the people who have called me, I have been amazed to learn how much it costs to go through the adoption process, the difficulties one encounters and the endurance one needs to complete the adoption process. An adoption within the country could cost between $10,000 and $15,000. Internationally it could cost $20,000 to $30,000 or more.
It is not only the legal fees, the psychological studies and the travel that is involved, but it is the work that people have to go through. There is also the dedication and the time away from work. As one person said to me, it was a true test of endurance to go through the process. Certainly the parents are well rewarded.
It is an entirely legitimate request to have this deduction allowed. I will certainly be supporting the bill. I hope my party and all members will support Bill C-246.
This morning I called the parents of an adopted child before making these remarks. I talked with Roy Berliner from Truro. He and his wife Cathy have adopted two Chinese babies, Jasmine and Sascha. He described the problems and the challenges they went through in the adoption process. It was incredible. It cost an incredible amount of money. It is an incredible sacrifice of time and effort. However, they are so gratified with the outcome of having these two wonderful little girls with them now that it has made it all worthwhile. Still the tax deduction could help.
Mr. Berliner was wondering if the deduction could be retroactive. Hopefully we will get it through for the future, but it would be difficult to make it retroactive.
Mr. and Mrs. Berliner adopted Jasmine and Sascha, one in 2000 and one in 2003. The process is that people first apply, then go through a home study to be certified as qualified parents. Then they have to obtain an order for permission from the province of Nova Scotia. They had to contact a facilitator in China and travel back and forth. There is documentation, translation, filing fees at the China desk and in Canada. Finally, after all this process, there is a proposal that comes forth and then they actually start the application to bring the babies back to Canada.
The process is extremely expensive. It is extremely time consuming. The process requires a great deal of dedication on behalf of the prospective parents.
I understand there are 400 children in Nova Scotia from China. That number surprised me, but that is the number that I understand are currently residing in Nova Scotia.
On behalf of the Berliners and all of my constituents who have gone through the adoption process and all of the future parents that will go through the adoption process, I encourage all members to vote for the bill. Let us bring this very reasonable tax deduction into force.
Pat Martin: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak in favour of Bill C-246. I think a previous representative of the NDP, the member for Windsor—St. Clair, also expressed his support. He is a lawyer who practised family law for a great number of years and added some interesting insights to the bill. He certainly raised it with our caucus which agreed that this type of gesture or tax relief, to acknowledge the costs that adoptive parents face, should be recognized in our tax system.
For one simple reason, it is an equality issue in a sense because those parents who have children biologically, obviously many of their costs are picked up and subsidized by Canadian taxpayers through our medical system and through the social services that we provide for parents through hospitals. The many substantial costs incurred by parents who are adopting are not recognized in the same way. We want to treat adoptive parents with the same recognition and appreciation as we support parents who have their children biologically.
It is only common sense that we should also recognize that many of those who do adopt, and who want children, have already spent a great deal of money in attempts to have children biologically through medical interventions et cetera. It can add up to a great cost.
By the time adoptive parents actually do take the final step and adopt, in all likelihood it has been a great cash outlay even by the time they reach that point.
It is worth noting that this tax relief would not only be for parents who were adopting babies, it would also extend to families who were adopting family members, for example, nieces, nephews or children of friends who may have died in a tragedy and who need a family unit to attach to.
There was a recent case of an earthquake in Egypt where constituents of my colleague from Windsor—St. Clair became involved. The earthquake in Egypt killed both parents leaving three children in the family who were in their mid-teens, in late adolescence. The Canadian relatives took measures to provide a home for the orphaned older children.
One can imagine the costs associated with all of that. The financial burden for this Canadian family of goodwill, to open their home to these orphaned children as a result of that tragic event in another country, is clearly something that most Canadians would be willing to recognize and accommodate by providing some tax relief. As these families reach out in often traumatic situations, this is something that society should recognize and applaud.
Adoption is expensive. I will not draw this out by repeating the member who just spoke. It is expensive enough to adopt a child domestically within Canada but there is also overseas adoption. All of us as members of Parliament have probably tried to intervene on behalf of parents who were seeking to adopt children overseas. China is a common source. There are horrendous costs. We are talking sometimes $30,000 and $40,000 by the time the child is brought to Canada and becomes a member of the family. If we assist families with those horrendous costs, I think it is incumbent upon us to do so.
I, too, compliment the member from Prince George for a very worthy piece of legislation and for doing something that would be of benefit to the constituents who I represent, and to all Canadians. It is a fitting way to end the week on such a positive note. My compliments to the member and he has the enthusiastic support of the members of our caucus.
Dave Chatters: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to support my colleague from Prince George--Peace River on his private member's bill. I think it is a worthwhile cause.
As my colleague from Lethbridge suggested, it is perhaps not often that our party advocates this kind of piecemeal tax relief, but on the other hand, this particular bill fits very well with our longstanding commitment of supporting families and doing what we can to help families.
Certainly, we support adoption and helping parents who, because of rising infertility rates or whatever the reasons might be, are not able to have a family of their own, and choose to adopt. There is all kind of evidence and studies to show that a child growing up in a strong, loving environment produces the best results, not only for the child, but for society in general.
I am a parent and know well the joy and pride that we take as parents in raising children, watching them succeed, and turning out well and being contributing members of society. It is appropriate that we, as a government, support as many children as possible, be it children in Canada or children from around the world, by taking them out of sometimes very difficult and unproductive circumstances and putting them into loving families. Anything we can do to help that happen must be positive.
It is just sheer coincidence that there happens to be a lengthy article today in the Ottawa Citizen dealing with this issue. The Ontario Liberal government is moving to increase the number of Ontario orphaned and abandoned children being adopted. Its goal is to increase crown ward adoptions by 15%.
Quite frankly, the federal Liberal government could do much to help that initiative of the Ontario government by passing this bill and providing this help. The vast majority of couples looking to adopt children are younger couples, in their twenties, thirties and forties, who want to have a family and at the same time are establishing their careers. They are probably buying homes and generally getting established. Therefore, the outrageous costs of some $10,000 to $15,000 for a domestic adoption and $20,000 to $30,000 for an international adoption is pretty daunting to those kinds of families. We could certainly do a lot to help them.
It is unfortunate, and I do not think there is any way to avoid it, but the process of adopting, both the process of putting a child up for adoption and the process of adopting a child, are legal processes. I do not think there is any way to avoid that. However, it seems whenever something in today's world becomes a legal process, it also becomes a very expensive process and those costs are pretty prohibitive.
I think it is a great way to go. It is not only the best outcome for society and the child, but it is a cost saver as well. The article in the Ottawa Citizen today quoted the cost of keeping a child as a ward of the state at $40,000 a year. There is a lot to be gained if those children can be put up for adoption more quickly and the process speeded up. The costs to those parents would be somewhat reduced through this tax benefit of up to $7,000, based on a percentage of the costs incurred.
The state could save money as well. There is also an issue of fairness because the process of having children and raising one's own children is subsidized by the state. It has been for as long as I can remember. As regrettable as it might be, with 30,000 pregnancies a year, babies that are terminated before birth are also a subsidized process by the state. Surely, with the tremendous benefit that is derived by everybody involved from the adoption process, we can justify the subsidization of the adoption process.
I have had occasion, several times in my 10 years as a member of Parliament, to help parents adopt, both domestically and internationally, with all the red tape and all the roadblocks that are put up. It is a daunting process to enter into as some of my colleagues described. It takes a lot of courage to start that and it takes years and years to go through the process.
We could do a lot of other things to help those parents, to help them through the process and to speed the process up. This is perhaps one part of it, but at least it is something we can do to help others enjoy the experience that we as parents have in raising children and having that pride.
I support the bill enthusiastically and hope the government would look at it from a compassionate point of view and support it as well.
The Deputy Speaker: Seeing no other members rising, I will recognize the hon. member for Prince George--Peace River under right of reply for the final five minutes of debate on this important matter.
Jay Hill: Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin my five minute wrap-up by thanking my hon. colleagues who rose today and those who rose on February 19 during the first hour of debate on Bill C-246.
I would particularly like to express my appreciation and the appreciation of adoptive parents from across Canada to my Conservative colleagues and the members of the New Democratic Party and the Bloc Québécois. Their support for this legislation indicates that they recognize the contribution that adoptive parents make to society as a whole, as well as the financial obstacles they face in building their families.
Many of the members who rose today did an admirable job of presenting some of the same arguments in support of a federal tax deduction for expenses relating to the adoption of a child that I myself have argued for many times in the past. It is unfortunate that the government appears poised to continue to deny this recognition and fairness to adoptive parents.
During the first hour of debate on Bill C-246 last month, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance stated that his government could not support this legislation because “the Government of Canada should not be in the business of making distinctions among families and the choices that they make”. He also stated that taxpayers should not be subsidizing what at times could be “discretionary expenses”.
I would like to point out that it is the government itself that has already established different classes of families. Bill C-246 would correct the inequity that sees adoptive parents face significant financial obstacles in starting and building their families.
The parliamentary secretary said it himself, “A child is a child is a child”. Because the federal government does not do anything to mitigate the financial burden of adoptive parents or anything to encourage adoption, it has established a separate costly class of adoptive families. It is as though the Liberal government is simply telling Canadians to accept that an adoptive child is an expensive child.
As I have said many times before, most adoptive parents willingly accept the financial implications of adopting a child. They believe the love and emotional rewards they receive in return cannot be given a price tag.
There was a very timely article, as was referred to earlier, on the front page of today's Ottawa Citizen , which detailed how the Ontario government is endeavouring to find ways to encourage more adoption. There are about 8,900 children who are wards of the crown and are awaiting adoption in Ontario alone. If the federal government were to provide a tax deduction for the thousands of dollars required to adopt a child, I believe many more Canadian parents would consider adoption.
I would like to express my frustration that this legislation has come this far, its second hour of debate, only to face almost certain death. Even if sufficient Liberal MPs rightfully ignore their government's ridiculous argument against this legislation and vote to allow it to proceed to committee for review, it is likely that an expected election call will kill Bill C-246 in its tracks. That is very frustrating for me and it is very frustrating for adoptive parents all across this country.
However, I will close by stating that I intend to win my seat once again in the upcoming election and I intend to reintroduce this bill in the next Parliament. This legislation to enact a tax deduction for adoption expenses will not go away no matter how much the Liberals would like it to.
The Deputy Speaker: The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to Standing Order 93, the recorded division stands deferred until Wednesday, April 21, 2004 immediately before the time provided for private members' business.
It being 1:08 p.m., the House stands adjourned until Monday, April 19, 2004 at 11:00 a.m. pursuant to Standing Orders 28 and 24.
(The House adjourned at 1:09 p.m. )